joeynach

I wonder if a -31.3 wRC (weighted runs created) value against Major League fastballs over his 6 seasons with the #WhiteSox had anything to do with Beckham being traded. They sent a great message today, you can't hit or progress, you can't stay here.

I have generally become very skeptical of signing free agents at or above 30 years of age to be the "fill in the gaps" and put us back in contention types. Most of them get exorbitant amounts of money in their mid to late 30s where if you dont win the WS in the first couple of years of these contracts you are in bad shape. Not just the mega deals for the 8 WAR guys like Puljos, Cano, Kershaw and such, but even the 7 year $214M for Fielder, 7 Year $120M for Werth, the $140M for Choo and Elsbury, the $120M for Hamilton. Ugh even the 5 year $80M deals guys like BJ Upton, Brian McCann got makes me want to puke. If the Sox want to improve and have money to spend now with the very low commitments they have on the books keep doing what they are doing. More int'l scouting and Free Agents where the value is greater, more draft picks aimed at immediate contribution (not turn an athlete into a ballplayer projects), more trading for players with numerous team control years left, more Free Agents who can be had on short term deals or who are in need of rebound prove it type contracts (Sizemore, Cruz, Chris Young, Corey Hart, Michael Morse).

Rosenthal speculates that the White Sox would prefer to trade an aging slugger with an expiring contract (making $15M) over their everyday SS (making $9.5M) having a nice year and still under contract through 2016 (if option picked up). Wow, he really stepped out on a limb there with that insightful baseball wisdom.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 11:15 AM) Hahaha. So, in retrospect, if we had actually kept Sergio Santos and Jake Peavy, we would be on the cusp of contention in the AL Central this season. Weird. Yeah right, this team scored an AL low 598 runs last year. About 150 less than the league leading Tigers. Throw Santos and Peavy back on this roster and all the Eaton and Abreu in the world isn't gonna get you over the hump.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 15, 2014 -> 11:42 PM) The Sox averaged under 22,000 per game last year and that's just about what the United Center holds. The Sox also sell $5 or $10 tickets to many games, while it costs you $60-$70 to stand at a Hawks game. I do realize that money affects decisions for fans, but to act like that's the #1 thing keeping Sox fans from attending is ridiculous. It's an extremely front running fanbase that isn't that big. Now with a really bad baseball team and the sport itself becoming insignifcant to the casual fan in the city of Chicago, no one is attending Sox games right now. Spare the price and economy talk, there are some very cheap tickets available to nearly every game. Cheaper tickets aren't just a function of a bad team thats rebuilding with low expectations. It's also a function of how baseball is digested today, more so through digital mediums and TV than ever before, and as a result teams draw more revenue from those mediums then ever before. The end game, lower attendance, lower ticket prices (in some markets), and less reliance on ticket sales for revenue or payroll. Baseball isn't the same business it was even when I was a kid in the 90s, there was no advanced media, live streaming, HDTV, baseball apps, baseball blogs, twitter, etc. Thats how I consume White Sox baseball more than ever, much less dependent on going to the ballpark to get my fill of whats important to me. And I think thats OK and I certainly think he Sox have adjusted to this. Of course you through a 95 win team with high expectations out there and you can fill the park, but for the other 90% of teams out there every year....this is the reality.

QUOTE (flavum @ Apr 14, 2014 -> 07:55 AM) First pitch tomorrow night--37 degrees. There wont be 10K people there then. U could give me scout seats to tomorrow nights game I am not going out there to freeze my a$$ off. Much happier from my couch and 55" LED in HD.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 3, 2014 -> 12:06 PM) Some portion of that was likely due to the White Sox having one of the highest average ticket prices in MLB over previous years. Either way they obviously figured out how to not only survive, but thrive with proverbial low attendance.

Attendance doesn't matter anymore, this isnt 1990. Have you seen the AAV of the TV contracts that a good 1/3 of MLB has received in the last 5 years. Have you not noticed the influx of revenue all teams receive from MLB advanced media. Have you not noticed how the White Sox in the bottom 1/3 in attendance almost every year are constantly in the top 1/3 in major league payroll. Teams, especially the White Sox have introduced so many non ticket sale produced revenue streams into the equation in the last ten years it just doesn't matter. I wouldn't be surprised if half of MLB get more money from media rights than ticket sales every season. This old default view that attendance and team payroll are proportional needs to go away, things have changed considerably since 2004.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Mar 31, 2014 -> 10:42 AM) I would love for it to be Jack Daniels Field. Its probably a hard sell right now with attendance down, the team struggling, and companies trying to pull back on some of that type of spending. As far as the US Cellular name goes, it appears did not acquire that piece in their acquisition, and I am sure like most contracts, there is an early termination clause to address situations like this. I think this gives a good indication where that extra money from MLB went if the team has lost its major sponsorship's. Since when are companies trying to pull back on that kind of spending, most of the fortune 500 are at record high profit margins and have you seen stock the stock market lately, record highs upon record highs. ATT named Cowboys stadium for $19M per year. Insane.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 31, 2014 -> 10:05 AM) I have some experience with Sprint dealing with large contractual obligations. My guess from that experience is that Sprint has looked at every way possible to break that deal and can't. In my opinion, US Cellular Field will never be known as Sprint anything because Sprint doesn't want it. That Sprint can't wiggle out of this contract is a testament to what a skilled negotiator Chairman Reinsdorf is. Um really, If I was Sprint and I can get access to the naming rights to a major league ballpark in a city I am looking to expand my footprint and customer base in and all I had to pay was $3.4M a year for the next 10 years.....I'm feeling I hit the jackpot. Thats a bargain by today's standards, in price and years. Look at what Citi pays to the mets per year, $20M, look what AT&T pays the cowboys every year, $19M. Sprint gets a ballpark naming rights deal for 10 years $34M if they would have included it in their takeover of US Cellular, seems like a no brainier to me. Strange that US Cellular didn't want to budge.

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Mar 30, 2014 -> 10:19 PM) I asked my guy at the sox about this. He said us cellular have the rights contractually. It's not the sox call on who replaces them. Basically, it's in us celluar's court. The man who brokered the deal, Jack Rooney, is no longer with us. And new management may not feel that the contract is worth the money. It's all conjecture at this point. I am sure this is some sort of language in the contract that if US Cellular gets acquired, liquidated, or goes out of business there can be changes to the naming rights. The thing is what US Cellular has done puts them kind of in limbo. They acquired the naming rights deal as a means for branding and exposure in Chicago, a big market for them in the early 00s. Now they have no assets or customers in Illinois after selling to Sprint. So why hold naming rights in an area where you don't and will never provide service? To me US Cellular should have sold the naming rights to Sprint along with the spectrum and customers, or negotiated a buyout with the White Sox so they could pursue a sponsor that has meaning in Chicago and Illinois.

About a year ago when I heard that US Cellular was exiting the Chicago market and selling their spectrum and customers to Sprint I emailed Brooks and asked if he was aware US Cellular was folding in Chicago and what the Sox would do. Being that the Corp sponsor whose name is on the stadium will no longer be present in this market I too found it strange. Brooks responded something along the lines of "We are aware of the situation with US Cellular and will be making arrangements". I remember when the Sox announced this partnership with US Cellular in 2003 I was thinking its only a matter of time before US Cellular becomes Sprint or Verizon anyway. I figured at the time I'd give it 5 years before US Cellular Field turned into Verizon or Sprint Field (the other large CDMA service providers).

The line opened at most sports books in Vegas at 77, most sites have it now anywhere between 76 and 77 wins. And when you make a poll for over/unders you should always use the hook man, the 0.5, so that you cant have ties.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 08:25 AM) The Sox had an agreement lined up with Juan Gonzalez to play RF had the Magglio trade gone through. That's a guy that I don't think even Herm Schneider could have kept healthy due to the ravages that steroids took on his body. He was signed by KC, barely played, and was only moderately effective. I then recall seeing his one and only AB in 2005 against Minnesota. He hit a weak ground ball and was immediately in pain, as, if I recall correctly, his hamstring tore itself clean off the bone. Wow, I dont remember the Juan Gonzalez part of the deal, but he was one of the most obvious juicers. Any dude who gets massive and then has this muscle tears off the bone injuries is so obviously a steroid injury it's not even a question. I remember feeling the same way when Nomar tore his groin of the bone and Ortiz tore his wrist tendon of his bone.

I just got finished watching the ESPN 30 for 30 called "The Deal", highlighting the Rangers desire to trade Arod after the 2003 season and frenzy between the Red Sox and Yankees that ensued to acquire him. Really fascinating program, many details not previously known about the Red Sox deal that was in place that hinged on union approval. Obviously this was rejected, and Arod was later traded the Yankees, but during the program Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer were speaking how it all came together. At the end of the 2003 season they were having difficulty agreeing to terms with Nomar on a contract extension, his original deal signed in 1997 was set to expire after the 2004 season. In order to make the Arod deal work with the Rangers the Red Sox needed to shed payroll and move Nomar as to open up SS for Arod. Both said in early December 2003 as a prelude to making their for Arod they had a deal in place to send Nomar to the White Sox for Magglio and Brandon McCarthy. The Nomar for Magglio swap was almost the same contract structure, both free agents after 2004, Magglio set to make $14M and Nomar $11.5, so the White Sox were actually taking on salary in the deal. The deal for the Red Sox would have then essentially been Manny and Nomar for Magglio, Arod, BMac. As we all know it fell apart when the union rejected the reduced salary Arod and Red Sox agreed to and placed into the contract. But for me this brings up an interesting memory for the 2004 White Sox. I do recall the Sox struggling to come to terms with Maggs on a contract extension around this time and into the 04 season, as a result I do remember some trade rumors swirling. However, if they deal would have gone down the White Sox would have been left with no RF and a jam at SS with both Jose Valentin and Nomar, and with Crede at 3B and Big Frank at DH there was literally no where for Valientin. Does anyone remember the specifics around this deal for the White Sox? What was the plan for Valentin had the trade gone through? What was to become of RF for the White Sox for the 04 season? Also, interestingly enough, if the White Sox had made this deal, McCarthy isn't around to contribute to the 2005 team in which he started 10 games and posted a 4.03 ERA, even more important then McCarthy isn't around to be traded for John Danks in 2007. Perhaps that deal never takes place, and perhaps the White Sox don't win the division in 2008 without Danks 195IP at 3.32 ERA. Crazy game this baseball is, crazy.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 08:41 AM) You legitimately think that a high school prospect won't help for 6 years? Meanwhile, people have already (incorrectly) talked about Tyler Danish, a high school pick in the 2nd round, pitching in the majors this year. He could legitimately get a cup of coffee next year and could be a significant piece of the puzzle come 2016. If it's not till 2017, that's realistic too. By all standards, if said high school player is taken in the 2nd, expecting him in the majors by 2018 is completely reasonable. They may bust - that's the nature of the beast. I'd still rather have that plus the allotted money to that slot than counting on anyone past the 10th round to contribute instead. Weren't Strasburg and Harper both drafted out of HS and in the majors within 2 or 3 seasons? Now everyday players and All stars.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 08:19 AM) All this was pointed out because someone wanted to sound smart about Ventura's deficiencies managing saying he bunts too much, even though it was last in the league and the 3rd lowest total in the major leagues this decade and runs into outs with Dunn at bat. Both are totally false. If people want to complain about Ventura's managing, I'm sure there are some legitimate gripes. But what was pointed out was not on the list, and if someone is going to steal at a 82% clip, I have no problem having him run in front of anyone. There is a far better chance to score from 2nd than 1B. Even in fewer plate appearances Dunn had more walks and twice as many RBIs with a runner at 2nd than with a runner at first in 2013. Once again, facts show it made sense for Rios to get to 2nd base. I didn't say he bunts too much, I said I didn't see his game managing style to properly value outs enough. Examples being bunts to setup sac fly runner at 3rd with 1 out for some sort of low contact or low fly ball hitter coming up, and yes all the examples of stealing bases during a Dunn AB. I don't care what Rios SB% is, the fact that the manager is OK with it shows me he doesn't agree with the modern principles of valuing outs. Dunn doesn't need a RISP, he either strike's out, walks (in which case the runner advances into scoring position), or hits a home run (in which case whether he is on 1st or 2nd is irrelevant). What Robin demonstrated to me was they he either doesn't care for these principles or doesn't know. Either one not acceptable to me, especially for one of the new younger generations of manager. If you want a guy to play some by the book baseball there are some old guys available; Leyland, La Russa, etc. But if you are going to get a manager who played in our generation (90's and 00's), he better be someone who offers something beyond what the old school lifers offer. Show me you study the defensive metrics, show me the defensive alignments you want to play in high leverage situations or lineup you want to play to offset another teams hitting tendencies (in a specific ballpark even). Show me you understand the tendencies of your relievers by going off the beat of lefty/lefty or righty/righty sometimes when you have found a statistical indicator that goes against convention. Show me you value working counts, walks, and on-base percentage as a method of offensive production and the tiring/revealing of the opposing pitchers stuff. Show me you properly value outs (a modern principle) by avoiding scenarios that result in voluntarily giving outs away (or risking giving them away). Unless I see these kind of tactics from my manager, than to me I am not interested. And thus far during RV's two seasons, I have not seen nearly enough of these principles to indicate he is or will be an effective manager for this organization.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 07:56 AM) Huh? Adam Dunn is the last guy on the roster who needs a RISP more than a "runner on base". Thank you!!!!

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 02:21 PM) Garza went for less than expected so the timing makes a ton of sense to grab a guy like Santana right now. We would have to give up a comp pick (2nd round), but either A) you keep him and he makes a reasonable $14M-$15M per year. B) You flip him next year and get back a ton more than the 2nd round pick or C) he flops and Jerry can only go to the Bahamas twice this year . But seriously, with a seemingly down market and SP always held at a premium at the trade deadline I think it makes a ton of sense. Of course I'm realistic and realize there is a very slim chance of this actually happening. Yeah I don't understand why there is a need to acquire another FA starter to a multi year contract for a heft sum on a rebuilding team that's probably 2-3 years away from a .500 season. Those IP are more valueable in the rebuild to a young starter or minor league call up to see if we have a potential piece of the rotation for the future. Signing Matt Garza, Ervin Santana, or Ubaldo Jiminez for 4/52 is a waste of money on this roster during this rebuilding time for the organization.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 26, 2014 -> 04:14 PM) No offense but you are moving the goalposts and are full of s***. Dunn batted 4th. I am pretty no one bunted in front of him. Rios stole bases in front of him and was very successful. The White Sox stole bases at a 73% clip and needed to steal bases to score. Robin used more pinch runners than any manager in 2013. There was stupid baserunning last year but I find it hard to place blame on a manager when someone gets picked off or misses a sign. Whether Rios was succseful or not, every SB attempt ahead of or with Dunn at the plate is a complete waste and risk of an out that is 100% un-justifyable. Whether RV called for them or Rios did there is no place for that kind of cavilarish behavior when it comes to maximizing the use of your 27 outs.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 26, 2014 -> 07:29 AM) The 2013 White Sox bunted for sacrifice the least of any team in the major leagues, and had the 3rd fewest attempts of any team this decade. It was more of the situations where he decided to bunt and steal that bothered me; ahead of Dunn for example, or moving a runner over the 3rd to setup a sac fly situation for a guy who isn't a fly ball or high contact rate hitter. Things like that, where the dots wouldn't connect. I saw too many of this from RV to respect his understanding of some of the modern aspects of the game or the tendencies of his hitters under that modern scope.

QUOTE (beautox @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 07:08 PM) I disagree Robin did a great job managing leverage in our bullpen last year nearly as good as the red sox link I thought there were times where he did a good job with managing the pen, understanding the matchups, and knowing his own guys. Like how in a bases loaded situation with a righty coming up in a tight game you can't actually bring in Nate Jones who is notorious for going ball 1 ball 2 right away. So in terms of that situation I'd say he got it right. However, he bothered me with many times stealing and bunting ahead of your true three outcome Dunn where advancing a runner into scoring position at the risk of giving an out is an absolute waste. Also showed me a lack of understanding when say he would get a leadoff double, then call for a sacrifice to give an out away to advance a guy over to 3rd, setting up a runner at 3rd with 1 out scenario for a hitter like Dunn, Beckham, De Aza......essentially non consistent deep fly ball hitters or your main three outcome guy. Again not worth giving an out away. So when I saw him implore these types of what I would call "default old school" tactics I decided he really wasn't the right manager IMO.

I am not a big fan of this move nor Robin Ventura. He hasn't shown me anything of substance to prove he a good in game manager, situational analyzer, or open and willing to employ the tactics of modern metrics and theory. In fact I think he has proven the exact opposite, I dont believe he values outs and has shown a willingness to give them away (bunts, steals, sacrifices), especially early in the game. I don't believe he is a real student of the game at this point, I thought his support of the now departed Jeff Manto and his vocal stance against working counts, walks, and OBP was a big organizational mistake. I would have been happy to see Hahn let RV play out his contract for this year while he seeks "his guy" next offseason. Maybe someone who is more progressive in his tactics and someone that the new young players that Hahn has brought in can relate too.

Im going to vomit!

Ugh the thought of signing Salty sickens me, there is a reason the Red Sox are fine with letting him walk. To me he is the definition of a serviceable catcher, but he is an awful fit for this team. We have enough low BA, low OBP players on this roster already. Salty had a good year this past season, his FA year go figure, but his previous seasons with the Red Sox your looking at a .220 hitter with a sub .300 OBP. He had a negative Offensive WAR every season with Boston except for his walk year, again go figure. He can slug a bit so that's good, but I really don't see him being a player that Rick Hahn has said they are looking for, in Salty's 7 seasons hes only posted an OBP above .300 twice. We already have two catchers who can post .220 BA's with .280 OBP's, why do we need a new one for 4/36?