Jump to content

Disco72

Members
  • Content count

    1,215
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Disco72


  1. QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ May 12, 2013 -> 03:12 PM)
    Not until they commit to a full tear down and rebuilding. Which, under KW, was never. Hopefully under Hahn things change. The Sox should have committed to a rebuild back in 2010, instead they went all in with guys like Dunn and the Konerko extension.

     

    You'd have to think 2016 is the earliest they could field a contender. All the big bad contracts will be off the books and you'd think a few of the young outfielders in the system would hopefully have progressed to MLB ready by then. Hawkins will obviously be key.

     

    A full rebuild will have a hard time matching the pitching the Sox have now.

     

    Which contracts are so bad to prevent the Sox from competing?


  2. QUOTE (winninguglyin83 @ May 12, 2013 -> 02:29 PM)
    not until they get salary relief and fix the farm system.

     

    Sit back, relax and ... well, you know the rest.

     

    It'g going to be awhile.

     

    Why do they need salary relief? Konerko, Floyd, and Crain alone combine for 27.5 million off the books for 2014.


  3. As I read the board these days, I see a lot of difference of opinion as to when the Sox can be competitive again.

     

    What do you think?

     

    My own opinion is rather optimistic, despite the terrible season so far this year. As I noted in another thread, the Sox have the one thing that is hardest and most expensive to find and acquire: affordable, effective, and mostly young pitching.

     

    Also in the Sox favor is the lack of terrible contracts. Even the ones people complain about really are not all that bad when you look at the buffet of awfulness that exists across the league for contracts. At least the unproductive ones (e.g., Dunn) have only one more year (2014) or have hope that the player can still produce at the major league level (e.g., Danks).

     

    The Sox also have not spent (we believe) the extra money coming to them from MLB for media rights, and they have that pitching staff in place for several more years at a pretty affordable rate.

     

    IMO, the current team would be in position to compete for 88-90 wins if the offense and defense were at least league average. I think these can be rebuilt at a reasonable price (in terms of trades or free agents). Instead of spending for that big $20 million+ bat, I think the Sox can compete with a 'balanced' offense, and as others have noted in other threads, players will be available in the offseason that fit this bill. This is in addition to anything that could be acquired via trade during the season or offseason.

     

    My own vote is 2014. I think Hahn has his work cut out for him, but I think he can do it without blowing up the strength of the current team.


  4. QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 12, 2013 -> 01:50 PM)
    I'd say at least 20 of the 30 teams in MLB have more upside than the Sox. Particularly if you count the minor league systems.

     

    You bolded the pitching part. Please list the 20 teams with more upside.

     

    Look at how many "good" teams have weak pitching. The Angels are tossing Jerome Williams out there (granted, anyone is effective these days vs the Sox offense), and look at how mediocre the Yankee pitching staffs have been lately. The hardest thing to get in MLB is young, effective, affordable pitching. The Sox have that. The one thing you can build around is young pitching. This year is awful so far, but at least they have the one thing that is both the hardest and most expensive to acquire.


  5. QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 12, 2013 -> 08:45 AM)
    The roster has very little upside/value. There are no ideas that aren't awful. Maybe though you have a few to share.

     

    This just is not true. The offense and defense are underperforming, but the Sox have both affordable and young pitching in the rotation and the pen.


  6. Callaspo (3B)

    Trout (CF)

    Pujols (DH)

    Trumbo (LF)

    Hamilton (RF)

    Kendrick (2B)

    Harris (SS)

    Iannetta ©

    Jimenez (1B)

     

    vs. Jose Quintana (2-0, 3.86 ERA)

     

    Quintana needs to be better tonight at going deeper into games, as he has only two starts (of 6) longer than 5 innings.

     

    De Aza (CF)

    Ramirez (SS)

    Rios (RF)

    Konerko (DH)

    Dunn (1B)

    Viciedo (LF)

    Keppinger (3B)

    Flowers ©

    Greene (2B)

     

    vs. Jerome Williams (1-1, 3.16 ERA)

     

    Williams is making only his second start of the season after pitching in the bullpen earlier this year.


  7. QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ May 3, 2013 -> 01:52 PM)
    How long is Peavy really going to be out for with back spasms?

     

    Also, anyone know how hard Danks was throwing last night?

     

    According to South Side Sox:

     

    The readings had him between 84 and 87, but [barons broadcaster Curt]Bloom said that the stadium at new Regions Field was slow by a couple ticks, according to scouts and team officials who brought their own guns. He was willing to revise that number upward to 91, but 89 sounds more reasonable at the top end, given earlier reports.

  8. QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Apr 20, 2013 -> 01:01 AM)
    For the love of god, bump Axe's turn. I'm not a fan of Gavin, but I'd take him over Axe any day of the week. At least Floyd CAN be dominant. The best Axerold can do is somehow get by with a good start. How often do we say "Man, Axerold dominated tonight". It's usually that he did a good job keeping us in the game, or he battled out there, or he gave a good performance. He rarely overmatches anyone, he just "gets by".

     

    For a back of the rotation guy, who cares if he overmatches anyone? He has been effective out there, giving the Sox a chance to win.


  9. I grew up in Clarendon Hills and still have family in the area. Clarendon Hills is less expensive than Hinsdale, but it has really shot up in price the last 10-15 years, comparatively. The "knock down small houses and build mansions" thing that was going on in Hinsdale when I was in high school has been going on in CH for the last decade now. For something affordable, you have to go west or east. I second the comments on LaGrange. My brother bought in Countryside when he and his wife left the city. Most of the rest of my friends went further west. I hear there are some good deals in Lisle these days, along with schools that are pretty good.


  10. QUOTE (kev211 @ Mar 31, 2013 -> 10:19 AM)
    Your guarantee is worthless.

     

    The cubs will always be the go to destination for baseball for tourist. Even if they build a new stadium. Because like you said if they're in town for business reasons and they have 3 hours to kill they're still going to want to see the cubs and their state of the art stadium over the sox.

     

    That was exactly my point. Of course it is worthless because it is grounded in anecdote and not any real facts. The irony is that you keep throwing around opinion as fact, which you do yet again in this post. Why would tourists go see a non-Wrigley stadium, especially if it is in a different part of the city (e.g., Rosemont, like the thread was started to discuss)? If you want to argue the Cubs have a larger, and more national, fan base, I think we could agree on that point. The 37% out-of-state number I posted earlier is flawed because we really don't know what it means. If it is mostly near-state Cub fans, it's a worthless number. If it is the tourist crown, it's relevant because it brings up the question of why someone would go to a Cubs game in Rosemont at Corporate Stadium X instead of some other tourist attraction in Chicago if they have 3 hours to kill.


  11. QUOTE (kev211 @ Mar 31, 2013 -> 03:12 AM)
    This

     

     

    No way of knowing how much of that 37% would still go to a new park. Also we don't have that same number from other teams around the county to compare it too and see if its really high because of wrigley or not.

     

    I also know the cubs have a large national following and would continue to wrigley or no wrigley.

     

    Since everyone wants to play the game of throwing out their own numbers as fact, I guarantee you that the 37% is much higher than the MLB average. Anecdotally, I can say that every time I have a conference in Chicago, everyone I talk to wants to (and does) go to Wrigley; nobody is interested in seeing a Sox game. These people are not Cubs fans - Wrigley Field is a part of the 'tourist' must-sees. Without Wrigley Field, the Cubs would most certainly have to attract fans the way most other teams do - by winning. You can already see the decline in attendance with their recent bad seasons.


  12. QUOTE (kev211 @ Mar 30, 2013 -> 03:36 PM)
    Well never know unless this happens. I say your overestimating it and you say I'm underestimating it. Well have to agree to disagree.

     

     

     

    All I know is the only team in Chicago that struggles to fill their stadium on a game by game basis is the white sox. The cubs fan base wouldn't stop showing up to a new park

     

    Or we could use actual data... According to the Cubs' own marketing studies, 37% of attendance at Wrigley Field is from out of state (tourists).


  13. QUOTE (OsweGo-Go Sox @ Mar 24, 2013 -> 10:41 AM)
    Which reminds me--anyone read Jonah Keri's The Extra 2%? It focuses on how the Rays ownership and front office rescued the franchise from obscurity. It's a quick read--not quite as readable as Moneyball as it gets very into Wall Street and financial strategies...but I enjoyed it because I remember the '08 Rays a lot better than I remember the '02 Athletics.

     

     

    QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Mar 24, 2013 -> 12:22 PM)
    some of the more negative amazon reviews

     

    If you want the baseball part of the story, it does ok. The "extra 2%" and "Wall Street" stuff is a forced narrative that never pays off.


  14. QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Mar 21, 2013 -> 02:29 AM)
    My bracket is upset-heavy:

     

    Cincinnati (10) over Duke (2)

     

    Pitt (8) over Gonzaga (1)

    New Mexico State (13) over St. Louis (4)

     

    Belmont (11) over Arizona (6)

     

    Colorado (10) over Miami (2)

     

    VCU (5) over Kansas (1)

     

    I realize how absurd that looks. I'm going to continue ruminating over Colorado/Miami, and possibly Cincinnati/Duke until the very last second I can change it.

     

    After my bracket is done getting butchered, I'm going to try to sell it to a meat packing company.

     

    I had this as well. DOH!


  15. I've got some experience here as well. I lived in Peoria for 5 years, and my in-laws live near there. In fact, "in my day," I knew some of the med students that lived there. Many of them lived in one the of high rises on Main Street. It didn't seem like the safest place, but it was cheap.

     

    IMO, renting in Peoria was more expensive than it should have been for the size of the city. In general, the north and northwest sides of Peoria area pretty good. Also, if you want to live a little further out, Morton has a lot of young professionals and families. If you want a couple of specific recommendations, PM me.


  16. QUOTE (Brian @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 08:14 AM)
    I thought the episode was kind of cheap. Paul Shaffer? Weak punchline, IMO.

     

    The stalker stuff was good, "This is kind of embarrassing..." and Abby Elliott is super hot.

     

    True - but bonus points for having Geddy Lee involved.


  17. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 01:59 PM)
    What would people wear for an interview conducted over Skype (university professor position)? I'll probably do shirt and tie, would people do more/less than that?

     

    Probably way too late (I was out of town), but we have interviewed potential faculty over Skype. Usually, they wore what they'd wear on campus (shirt and tie or coat and tie).


  18. QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Dec 7, 2012 -> 01:02 PM)
    How else am I to respond to what wite said?

     

    I'm not ignoring anything, I hear you guys.

     

    Yes, I agree the route that should be taken is from the bottom to the top of the food business. I'm asking for too much right off the bat. This is just a "dream location" and thats why I even brought it up, and I truly believe I can be successful at this spot. This house I'm living in now is already willed to me, it's paid off, my family has been in it since the 30's, so how sweet would it be to run the business 5 seconds away? Pretty flippin sweet.

     

    The #1 thing investors look for is knowledge of the business / industry. You don't have it. If your passion can't lead you to learn and develop a plan on how to succeed, then it is only going to lead you to failure. Chances are that location you want to buy will turn over 10 more times in the next 3 years. You'll have your time, if you really want it to happen. I know others have given their advice, but I see this stuff every single day. Even the entrepreneurs with great plans realize that even the best plan doesn't survive first contact with the real world, but at they are prepared for it. All we see and hear about are the entrepreneurs that become huge successes. Nobody ever talks about those that fail miserably and lose everything. You've got what it takes; just do it the right way. Everyone in this thread wants to see you become a huge success; just give yourself the best chance to succeed.

×