[Sox expected to be a "little bolder financially" than most]

2 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Exactly, Machado got one of his buddies paid and successfully used us to get more money from the Padres.  And had we offered the most money, it’s practically all but a guarantee he would of signed with us, as free agents typically like money.

I like how you're literally making one of my points for me after I stated it and you somehow "missed" it.

[Sox expected to be a "little bolder financially" than most]

8 minutes ago, SoxBlanco said:

Maybe it’s not a reading issue. Maybe it’s an issue articulating your point. Do you actually believe that if we offered somebody the most money, they would say no, and one of their reasons for saying no would be because they didn’t like how we handled the Machado situation a couple years ago?

You don't think players ever avoid going to shitty organizations? Like I said, one already turned down the most money.

[Sox expected to be a "little bolder financially" than most]

3 minutes ago, SoxBlanco said:

The Machado situation is a reason why you might not expect us to land a big free agent. It’s not a reason why a big free agent would choose not to sign here. I believe you are the one who has reading issues. 

You believe I have reading issues because you have a different opinion than me?

That's an odd correlation you're making. What was it I didn't read? I provided reasons and he's ignoring all except 1.

[Sox expected to be a "little bolder financially" than most]

7 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

So just to confirm, the only thing you got is La Russa?  If your other reason free agents should avoid us is because we’re cheap, well then that’s just a stupid comment not worth stating.  I was hoping there was more to your statement, but as expected it was just your inner meatball talking.

I have to assume you have issues with reading at this point.

I will restate:

We attempted to lure a FA by signing his friends to justify a clear lowball offer. Our owner is loyal to a fault and always oversees hiring the wrong personal and constant lowball offers (and overlooking readily available quality resources), which includes LaRussa. A lot of this is the result of constantly crying poor. He also has a history of bamboozling the fans.

And then, yes, there is LaRussa. A 76 year old who has not managed in 10 years and is earning ire socially with his stances on social issues, his shaky past with many players as well as his stubborn and arrogant nature, and some clearly contrived autopilot comments at the presser upon his hiring.

I stated most of this right off the bat so I'm not sure where you are ignoring it, how you are missing it or why you "weren't following" when I answered your questions outright.

[Sox expected to be a "little bolder financially" than most]

4 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Talk about moving the goalposts.  Here is what you said:

Still waiting for an answer.  Just the La Russa factor?  That’s your only reason?

I didn't move the goal posts at all. I answered the question. And then you asked for the answers you already received.

This is about as a bizarre an interaction as I've had on a message forum.

[Sox expected to be a "little bolder financially" than most]

13 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I still don’t follow.  Wheeler signed with the Phillies for family reasons.  Machado signed with the Padres because they offered significantly more money.  If the money is there, we should be an attractive landing spot for most free agents.

Lol "family reasons."

The point really flew over your head. Yes, we signed his friends to try to sway him instead of offering him the money we knew it would take to sign him.

You're not following because you're not trying to.

 

When has the money ever really "been there?"

I swear, some of you guys will never stop falling for this team's facades. The LaRussa hiring is the cherry on the ruse Sundae that Reinsdorf has been feeding the fans for years now.  The Sox have been a notorious spot for star FAs to avid in the past and now that's only likely to continue. But just the bus league stuff this team has been resorting to lately makes this organization a clear embarrassment. 

[Sox expected to be a "little bolder financially" than most]

1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Why would a big free agent stay away from this team?

Lol.

We signed 2 of Machado's buddies to try to sway him to sign with us instead of just paying him. That ALONE answers your question.

But then we can add the fact that Reinsdorf is loyal to a fault and has hired a lot of the wrong people and now he's basically hired a 76 year-old who hasn't managed i 10 years as a favor for guilt.

We offered Wheeler the most money and he still didn't sign.


This all speaks volumes about this team.

[Sox expected to be a "little bolder financially" than most]

9 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I don’t follow.

What is it you're not following? Pretty self-explanatory. 

[Sox expected to be a "little bolder financially" than most]

Well, doesn't that sound familiar. Maybe we can sign a couple of Bauer's friends and sign him to a sweet, friendly discount multi-year deal.

If I'm a big FA in 2020, honestly I probably stay away from this team.

[Tony La Russa named Manager]

5 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Literally every comment saying “Hinch’s team cheated and LaRussa is a champion” needs “what about the gigantic steroid abuse scandal” asked in reply.

This.

[Tony La Russa named Manager]

8 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

Obviously Hinch was a candidate.  I highly doubt anyone that mattered told DK the day RR was fired that Hinch was their guy - he was just expressing excitement for the future.  Like 95% of all sox fans the day RR was fired.  

But as most of us know, anything that appears hopefully always ends up being a ruse.

[Tony La Russa named Manager]

1 hour ago, Dallas Kong said:

You know, my brother gets equally as hurt and upset by trivial things as you do. You don’t live in the DC metro area by chance, do you?

I’m going to bed. Please don’t get too despondent if I don’t immediately address your grievances.

Who said I was hurt or upset?

Your constant deflections are tiresome. At least I'm trying to get somewhere. You're just pretending to toy with me at this point. Which is fine because you still have a lot of things to address. (But at this point you've drug on this act so long you've long since distanced yourself from them, which was probably the intent).

When you feel you're right, I'm sure you press on. When you're under the microscope, my pressing of you is apparently "trivial." You'll never discover self-awareness, I suspect.

[Tony La Russa named Manager]

1 hour ago, Dallas Kong said:

Honestly, dude, you tooting your own horn about how reasonable you are in every single post is just annoying. Try to take it down a notch.

No, I don’t think a scheme that a few Astros hitters used in their own stadium for a year or so forced anyone out of baseball who would have had a long and prosperous career had the Astros not concocted said scheme. I think that’s totally ridiculous. It’s hard to quantify one way or the other, but I’ll try to put some actual data together tomorrow. But for now, no, I don’t believe it at all.

What you call ridiculous is easily reality. It also puts asterisks next to people's names on the team who might have hated what was happening but justifiably felt scared to say anything. You're grossly underestimating the effects these things have on people.

[Tony La Russa named Manager]

Just now, Dallas Kong said:

I gave you a serious response that addresses what I believe to be most of your points, but this is why I give you so many jackass retorts. There is no reason to take this so seriously. There is no reason to not be amused by this. We will never meet. If I die in my sleep, you will never know. And vice versa. This isn’t life or death. I want to have the conversation, but ultimately, it’s meaningless. It doesn’t impact our actual lives at all. So...chill, man.

There's a time and place for humor. Humor is general is good. Humor used to deflect the argument or attack the person challenging you to get out of having to take it seriously is not. There is a big difference. And you ignored so many of my points for so long while doing this that it pretty much outs you as someone who can't handle it.

[Tony La Russa named Manager]

4 minutes ago, Dallas Kong said:

Thank you!

Genuinely, thank you for finally pointing out what bothered you so much.

You can dislike that it doesn’t bother me, but that won’t change it. Sorry you think it’s childish. I grew up in the 90s so I looked at baseball as some sort of holy thing. It was innocent. Everyone played baseball, everyone followed baseball, me and my friends knew all the records and traded cards over lunch. Rickey Henderson, Tony Gwynn, Wade Boggs, Kirby Puckett, and, of course, Frank Thomas were household names to us. I could have recited certain of their stat lines like the back of my hand.

Then 1998 came around. Maris’ record, something that was absolutely meaningful and untouchable to us as kids, was gone, the victim of a couple of drug pounding lunatics. Couple years later that new “record” was smashed by another guy in cartoonish fashion. 61+ has now been done multiple times, all meaningless. 500 homeruns was special and when I was a kid we could name all those guys- now, that list has names on it like Gary freaking Sheffield.

That was when baseball grew up for me. I still enjoy the game. I love the Sox. I even understand that steroids helped baseball draw in more fans and survive as a business. But I hated how it denigrated the game and, because it did, denigrating the game doesn’t have the same impact it would have had on me in 1997. Maybe that makes me a sentimental old fart, and maybe you think the logic sucks, but no, I am not going to be all that worked up about what the Astros did. It just doesn’t raise my hackles at all, really.

Drugs and marriage are totally different and not comparable to this at all. If you cheat on your spouse, you’re ruining lives. Same with drugs. Apples to oranges.

I pointed this out to you when you originally said it.

So I could be a dick and say, "maybe you should have paid attention better when I originally said it and not make an ass of yourself with all the snarky comments." But I'm more reasonable than that.

Are you?

 

Really? You don't think it's ruining lives? You don't think some guys getting cheated out of many of their biggest dreams could have an effect on people to a tragic extent? And possibly affect their pay in future contracts? I don't think you've thought this through. And whether you care if I "like it" or not, it's poor logic. This is legitimately how children think, not adults. The fact you *assume* it happens all the time is logic flaw #1, and then you have the perception that since you *think* that is true, it's ok for others to do it, no big deal. Wrong on both accounts.

[Tony La Russa named Manager]

6 minutes ago, Dallas Kong said:

You’re welcome to point out the exact fallacy. Did I miss a question you asked? I don’t remember ignoring any specific question. By all means, remind me.

I don’t have friction with you. Frankly, you’re not worth having friction with. No one here is. You amuse me, and I do think you are just babbling when you talk about logic because I still never see you use any. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Also, I do enjoy @hi8is clear annoyance at this conversation.

You missed plenty at the time. You're still ignoring virtually all of my points NOW so asking me what you missed in retrospect is frankly obtuse.

You think I am babbling because you lack comprehension. You keep deflecting everything I say and keep responding with childish remarks. Over and over. I'm glad you are amused but I am not. I have already proved you wrong numerous times just by your unwillingness to even address most of what I say. Yet you keep responding to me. One of these days maybe you will post a response that actually is relevant and doesn't dodge everything.

Whatever you want to call it. A few posters tend to resort to ad hominem and childish remarks and there's only one reason for it: lack of ability to actually argue a point. Period.

[Tony La Russa named Manager]

2 minutes ago, Dallas Kong said:

Are you this insufferable in person? We get it, you’re great! Your logic is impeccable. You are totally civil! You never take a joke, because everything, even sports, is super serious and must be discussed with nothing less than the utmost focus and concern!

Geezus. Lighten up, Francis.

I am very "lightened." I have a sense of humor.

But it's funny how people are so serious with their arguments until they get shown up and then suddenly it's nothing but petulance and attempts to soften the blows. "Hey, lighten up, man!" Yeah, people tend to say that when they get shown up. But if it was you that got the upper hand and I disappeared you think you'd still have the same feeling? Of course not. Just like no one is ever really sorry for cheating until they get caught.

You keep deflecting everything I'm saying and failing to acknowledge it and then resorting to ad hominem (Oh hey, look... another fallacy) and snarky remarks because, AGAIN, you lack the reasoning ability.

The act is transparent and I'm not fooled, and I know you can't admit when you've made a mistake. So better to move on. Why keep responding to me?

[Tony La Russa named Manager]

4 minutes ago, Dallas Kong said:

Feel free to point out where you kicked my butt the other day. You said the Astros didn’t get punished enough, I said Hinch and Luhnow got suspended, you said that wasn’t enough, I said cheating was less meaningful to me in light of baseball’s steroid issue. You then started going on about how great your logic was compared to mine. I walked away because I got tired of talking to a rock.

Yeah, that's such a pinpoint accurate, totally non-hyperbolic representation of how it happened.

Saying something disgraceful doesn't bother you simply because you accept that it happens all the time is grade-school level stuff. "Everyone's doing drugs so it's totally ok."

I've heard this nonsense regarding political figures. "Seriously, who cares that he cheated on his wife? They all do it." (I have heard people say that verbatim) It's absurd.

[Tony La Russa named Manager]

1 minute ago, Dallas Kong said:

Feel free to point out where you kicked my butt the other day. You said the Astros didn’t get punished enough, I said Hinch and Luhnow got suspended, you said that wasn’t enough, I said cheating was less meaningful to me in light of baseball’s steroid issue. You then started going on about how great your logic was compared to mine. I walked away because I got tired of talking to a rock.

Again, transparent excuse.

When someone asks you questions and requests explanations, gets them and then totally ignores them and ignores the questions you pose to THEM... you can say whatever you want but you're not fooling me.

I wasn't presenting *my* logic, but just logic. Everyone who seems to have friction with me really loves their fallacies and are terribly unaware of how many they wrap their arguments around on a consistent basis.

[Tony La Russa named Manager]

Just now, ChiSoxJon said:

What is the race issue? TLR is old and Caucasian and likely conservative, but what is the issue there? I'm lost

Unaware of his history and missed the obvious playing to the black crowd today, I see?

[Tony La Russa named Manager]

Just now, The Hawk said:

Where are fans forced to stand for the national anthem? I haven't seen that happen anywhere in the United States  in any public gathering. DOn't make shit up please.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying they are forced to, but that the perception/narrative from many is that you have to do it simply because it's your duty. You know just as well as I do that a lot of people are actually militant with this shit. Which makes it feel forced/unnatural. Obviously this mentality leads to doing a lot of things for the same reason. And I have never understood how people allow themselves to be manipulated that way.

[Tony La Russa named Manager]

35 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

I preferred Bochy and Hinch,but TLR is gonna win a lot of games the next few years. He knows what he is doing. People will be very surprised with how well he does. 

The actual managing is but one of many potentially combustible elements.

The possible race issue, the arrogance, the inevitable decline due to his age, possible influence over the office, etc. are but some of these. I'm more worried about those.

[Tony La Russa named Manager]

5 minutes ago, ChiSoxJon said:

Is this Forum always fighting? Or is there typically civil discussion?

Notice I don't do any of the name-calling around here. When someone has to call someone a "little man" it shows you how weak their arguing skills actually are. And then they only intensify that once you call them out for it. A person with strong comprehension skills doesn't need to enact such behavior. Period.

I never have a problem with civil discussion. Unfortunately any debate eventually has to have a closing point and once an ego is bruised that usually tends to be it.

[Tony La Russa named Manager]

4 minutes ago, The Hawk said:

Love of country and respect for veterans should transcend politics. That is my opinion. 

What constitutes that tends to be mere narrative for so many people. And so much crap people call "political" these days really isn't. What do you define as "love of country?" It doesn't have to mean standing up during a force anthem like a zombie just because it's implied that it's your "duty."

[Tony La Russa named Manager]

15 minutes ago, Dallas Kong said:

Trolling doesn’t phase you? Guy, you’re on an anonymous internet message board. You’re not gonna get punched, you’re not going to get fired, and you’re not going to lose your place in mommy’s basement. Not over anything that occurs here. If anything here phases you, it’d be an even greater sign that you need counseling. You get zero credit for being unphased.

The reason I “disappeared” from our last conversation is the same I reason I made a joke about you here. You talk a lot about logic and reason but show little of it. You criticized the logic I used in making a purely subjective statement of my own beliefs, which doesn’t make any sense. Rather than making you some sort of Glorious Man of the Enlightenment, your talk about logic is just air.

Seriously, only a teenager could combine your level of pretension and idiocy into one small package. So have fun prepping for the SATs and wondering if you’ll get a handy after prom, little man. Adios.

Again, this shtick is so transparent.

You call it "pretentious" when I actually take your arguments/takes seriously after I've invalidated them and only after as a way of softening the blow to your ego.

Only a person who has lost an argument attacks the other person's acuity and then fires childish remarks at them after disappearing from said argument; I'm not the one who ran away. I don't need to make snarky remarks about "SATs" and call someone "little man" like a schoolyard child because I don't have that insecurity and I don't ever quit on a discussion unless I'm conceding a point.

You making these snippy remarks and attacks is only rationalized by a blow to the ego, there's literally no other reason to resort to that. A person always takes an argument seriously until they have lost, and then suddenly they have to puff their chest out, namecall and hurl childish remarks. Anyone smart can see right through it. Guess what? I never have to resort to that because I'm not insecure and I'm not afraid to be wrong like so many people are. That's why I pick and choose my arguments very carefully. I care very little about "opinions," but when I see something that's just plain incorrect I call someone on it.

tl;dr version: If you have to walk away from an argument silently without a counterpoint, clearly you don't have one and you lost that argument. Clear as day. If you can't answer a question then it's obvious you just don't have the answer.