greg775

QUOTE (ozzfest @ Oct 18, 2013 -> 05:25 PM) The White Sox have never hit the jackpot in free agency. Ever. Why is this any different? If this (Abreu) guy were as good as people say, wouldn't the Yankees, or Giants, or Rangers, or Cubs been all over him and they would have definitely been willing to outbid the White Sox. Paying him twice as much as Puig.....I'm skeptical. Not trying to be a buzzkill, but there needs to be a separate discussion here of just how unproven this guy is. The White Sox have never been the smartest free agent seekers....If something is too good to be true...it is. I guarantee this guy isn't an all star. It's a risk, but his contract is not that outrageous in this day and age. If he's pathetic, sure, the Sox will be stuck with him a long long time. But the Sox are desperate and currently have some money to spend. At this stage, he's probably worth the risk. Now it's time to improve C and 3B and one outfield spot and add a reliable bullpen guy while hoping/pleading Semien takes over for Beckham.

QUOTE (flavum @ Oct 18, 2013 -> 05:19 PM) What gets lost in the overall numbers with Viciedo, is that his bat goes silent for months at a time. He's so inconsistent, and you never trust him to get a run in when has to be driven in. His upside, to me, right now seems like that of Juan Uribe. Swing as hard as he can and hits it once in a while. I also agree it 'could' change and hopefully it will.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Oct 18, 2013 -> 05:07 PM) I just can't believe people call a guy that hit 25 home runs as a 23 year old rookie a bust. He struggled last year. A sophomore campaign in which he only had 470 PA's due to injuries. Guys, please don't fall for the offseason hype thing, just cause it's offseason. I'm excited about adding Abreau, but yes, Viciedo has been a bust and please don't include Dunn in any 3-4-5-6 lineup projections, acting like Dunn is some sort of feared hitter/stud. Let's let it play out, but don't make guys seem like great hitters/players, just cause it's offseason. Add Beckham to that group, too. Look at it this way, if we had a game tomorrow, would you want to watch Viciedo, Beckham or Dunn step to the plate? I would hope the answer is no. Maybe after a long offseason I can stomach watching them again.And maybe Viciedo will become a stud. I think we hope that, but as of now he is a terribly undisciplined hitter who belts a deep one once in a while and Beckham is average at very best.

64 pages? Time to skim them all. Obviously it's worth the gamble.

64 pages? Time to skim them all. Obviously it's worth the gamble and I don't even know how much the Sox are paying him yet.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 17, 2013 -> 06:35 PM) http://www.piratesprospects.com/2013/10/ja...first-base.html For the Pirates, Loney/Gaby Sanchez actually makes more sense because of the risk of Abreu busting. In other words, there's a lot less risk to them spreading let's say $70 million between Loney and Sanchez and getting a "decent/predictable" OPS versus the unknown with Abreu. For the White Sox, you have to go all out for Abreu. Theoretically, you could sign Loney and then platoon him with Viciedo at 1B. In that scenario, you'd have someone like Granderson and also Loney facing the toughest righties (along with DeAza)...although aren't Viciedo's splits this season a lot more balanced, compared to the struggles he had with tough righties in the past? Of course, the problem is that do Loney and Granderson accomplish much more than adding $100 million to the payroll? Maybe they turn us into an 80 win team, but is it really worth it in 2015 or 2016? Obviously, the White Sox are in an incredibly difficult position to be in...where spending can put you back into decency perhaps, but still far away from contention. We know they're not going to spend for potential impact players like Ellsbury, Choo, McCann...etc. Napoli and Morales even are seemingly out of range in terms of salary. Salty is likely to return to the Red Sox or become too expensive. And then if you don't have either McCann or Salty catching 120 games, how in God's name can the White Sox be competitive unless they got totally lucky like the A's did with their postseason hero (Vogt) at that position. This also leaves the White Sox in their traditional position of taking fliers on guys like Corey Hart or Chris Young Very good take IMO. Abreu is key acquisition. Grandy as well. One thing you did skip is possibility of a trade. There will be a trade or two IMO.

Sox really need this guy to start showing fans they care about turning this around. If they get him, combine that with a Viciedo/Beckham Santiago blockbuster trade for a catcher/third baseman and reliever or some combination and we might be on the right track IMO.

QUOTE (flavum @ Oct 17, 2013 -> 06:46 PM) http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...rticle_63066500 Should be interesting to see if Boston ultimately goes nuts and overpays. 70 million? How many years? Four? No way this guy just gets 10 mill a year.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Oct 17, 2013 -> 04:57 PM) I really don't think an 18+ win improvement is out of the question. I'm not counting on it, but I think it can be done. Signing McCann and Abreu could easily give us a 8 win improvement by themselves. Add in the fact that having another year of development out of Quintana, Santiago, Garcia and Viciedo could add a couple more. We were in a lot of games this year and our record could have easily been better than it was. We played 60 one run games and 23 extra inning games. Our record in those? 24-36 and 8-15 respectively. The additional players/development and an improvement in our hard to explain poor fielding from this year could possibly flip those numbers around. If that happens, we are a lot closer than people realize. Sox have so much work to do on the roster, on the field (defense wins games) and regarding team chemistry/attitude. Right now we are the patsies of the Central Division. Sox routinely get mopped up by Detroit, Cleveland and KC and even have problems with Minnesota. Barring the changes to 5-6 lineup spots that many of us want, this doesn't figure to change. I say odds of Sox flirting with .500 after this year's disaster are very slim. This isn't the NFL.

So Alexander a lock to Kansas because of Jerrance Howard and his girlfriend playing for Kansas women's team? Will he be academically eligible? Anybody know? Where will the Okafor/Jones package wind up? It seems to me if they really are going to go to school together, the only possiblilities are Duke and/or Kansas. Kentucky has a top PG coming in, meaning no way Tyus Jones goes there. Baylor is Baylor. They don't win these type of package recruiting battles for kids outside of the state of Texas. I don't see why Okafor would want to go to Duke, being a Chicago kid. I could see why Jones would want to run the show at Duke. That leaves Kansas. Okafor would be the latest big man to rule at Kansas and Jones would also start from Day One. Since Self is kind of a likeable guy to recruits, and Howard is Mr. Illinois, does Kansas win this package by default? Or do these 2 kids eventually decide against the package deal, like so many recruits do? Package deals rarely come to fruition.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 17, 2013 -> 12:24 AM) Think about this for a second is it really true that consistently winning could switch Chicago to a Sox town? The Cubs haven't won s*** in over 100 years. Their fan base doesn't care about winning. They have done what I wish every baseball franchise could pull off, making it seem fun to go to a MLB baseball game no matter the outcome. As Sox fans we take pride often times in not supporting a terrible team. Cub fans, it could be argued, are better "baseball" fans because 2 million of them come out to watch baseball, not just watch their team when it is winning. The Sox should have made a better dent by having the newer modern ball park, but failed because of the too steep upper deck and ball-mall anti-marketing. The Sox blew it in two ways, like you said. One, being the ballpark. You are right. It was a feeble attempt at a brand new park. It's OK now, still nothing special. No. 2, of course, is blowing it after 2005. There's no way we could blow the momentum we had as a franchise, right? Well the Sox completely blew it and less than 10 years later we have perhaps the worst franchise in baseball except for Houston and Miami. They should have ridden the WS title to many divisional titles and thus actually would be known as the "winning" team in the Windy City. Blown opportunity. Arguably, considering all the teams in baseball and all the teams that do it right, we may never get that opportunity to rule the city again.It's going to be very hard to build this thing back up.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 16, 2013 -> 05:39 PM) Does anyone want to throw out a legit guess at Salty's contract? If he's talking 3/$30 or more, then that could certainly be worth turning down a qualifying offer. I have a sneaky feeling the Sox are going to go the rebuilding route and not pay big bucks for any of these guys, who all have some flaws. If McCann is 30, that's too old to throw 100 million at I'm guessing and if Salty gets 5-6 years, Sox will certainly pass on that too IMO. I'd suspect if Grandy doesn't want to break the bank, he might be a guy they sign. Same with Abreu if he doesn't want astronomical dollars or if nobody is willing to give him astronomical years/dollars. I could picture the Sox giving Phegley a full season. And now that I think of it, I could see the Kepp/Gillaspie platoon happening. Glad I dropped my automatic renewal on mlb.com.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 16, 2013 -> 03:42 AM) He has a great personality and makes me laugh so I'm ok with his results based on that. Would you rather have some boring person in his shoes where no one is interested to even tune in to listen to them speak? At least he's entertaining. I would give him an A minus. I think he shows a good personality only once a year, at the Washington correspondents dinner. Otherwise, he's not that funny.

This might be the wrong thread. If you want to make it its own post go ahead. Call it Obama approval rating: My question is: How do you rate Obama as a President? I truly would say he's a huge failure and I voted for him one of the two times. I think he deserves a D to D-minus, I truly do. Do u agree? I do think Romney would have been an F and McCain a D-minus if that's any consolation.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 01:20 AM) The article says he mumbled, not that he yelled, or at least one of the articles I found said that. He was convicted of murder 2 because the other guy actually started the whole incident. He didn't just randomly stab some dude. The one I read said one guy had him pinned then he stabbed him. Had he not overreacted, it probably would have just been a barfight. Sad if this guy had no prior violent tendencies, but the fact he stabbed a guy to death I would think would be minimum of 24 years, not 12.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 09:50 PM) He was a friend of a friend I met a few times. I never really liked that crowd and hadn't seen him for a couple of years prior to that murder. Interesting in your link how he yelled at the judge at sentencing. The judge told him if he keeps it up he'd re-think the 12 years and give him more. I think the friend of the friend got off pretty light. 12 years and he killed a guy. Sounds like a tragic case all around. I'd think he'd get more than that, though. Maybe 30 years. In this day and age, 12 years isn't that many in a life of a 27-year old. I could see him getting 12 if he hit him with a bar glass or something and by fluke he died, but a stabbing? 12 years is pretty thin I think.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 09:10 PM) Would be interesting to see how Jenks responds to this because he is more economically driven, and I presume the main reason for not going for the conviction is that economically it makes no sense to spend thousands of tax payer dollars on a verdict that is redundant. So Ill put it back in your hands. Should the govt spend tax payer dollars on court cases that are redundant (Ie the convict is already going to be executed/life in jail)? My answer is that depends on what you believe the justice system is built for. I do not believe its built for vengeance, or at least I hope that its not. I want to believe that it is built as a deterrent and that the hope is that no one will ever break the law, and if they do we are forced to punish them, but not because it makes us feel good about doing it. So based on my belief, Id say if hes already being executed/life imprisonment, it probably doesnt make much sense to spend lots of time and money on another conviction, even if that means the victims family/friends wont get the closure that they want. We were all OK for him not going on trial for her murder. He already got what he deserved from the other cases. He actually got life in prison and they never even found the bodies of the 3 other girls he killed. Kudos to the jury. I doubt he'd be found guilty today. Also the parents of my friend weren't crazy about all the specifics of her horrible injuries delivered by the coward coming out at trial. However, they did feel bad til this day that he didn't have to fess up to the murder, feeling their daughter may not have gotten her day. The dad of my friend did want to kill the prick but never had a chance. the killer is one of those lowlifes that sneers at the victims families and acts like a macho piece of s*** that he thinks he is. Basically a guy who should have never been born. Or was "Born to Raise Hell" like I believe Richard Speck had written on his arm or something. In life if there's bad timing and we run into one of those mass murderer zeros it could be curtains for any one of us. So everybody was OK with the decision, which like you said, was primarily based on economy. He already was convicted. The cases of the other 3 girls were not separate; I think lumped all into one murder case.

I happen to think victims have a lot of rights. Family members are victims too. I had a best friend brutally murdered by a moron many years ago. Her case was never brought to trial because the murderer was given life for some other murders and they didn't see a need to try him for her case since he got life. He's still rotting in jail. But I like to believe her mom, her dad, her sister, me and those who knew her were also victims. Just because she's gone doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to have her murderer convicted and burned.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 08:30 PM) I presume she is, but it just would have misconstrued the point I was making. It doesnt matter if shes in jail or not, that should have no bearing or impact on how fast the trial is. Innocent until proven guilty. It has to mean something, and for me its something that I actually believe is worth fighting for. In a perfect world, how should her case be handled in your opinion? Let's say she truly is guilty (which she damn well appears to be 100 percent). Give me a date when she will be sentenced and when in a truly caring society she SHOULD be sentenced. Thank u.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 08:40 PM) I agree with you that we can make improvements. We still had the best judicial system 100 years ago and it didn't take 10 years and 2-3 appeals for someone to get sentenced. Now, that's a rarity, but it shouldn't happen. Amen, Jenks. I knew you were wise when I saw your name. As some may recall I love Bobby Jenks.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 08:20 PM) I agree emotionally with Greg here. If this lady admits to it and pleads guilty, get that life long cell ready for next week. There's no point in clogging up court dockets with a case like this. But, if she doesn't confess and/or wants to put up a defense of some kind (insanity probably), she has the right to do so and you have to respect the process. Greg, it's not like this lady is leaving a cell except to go to court. Edit: By the way, she should be taken out back and shot and/or subject to the gallows as soon as her guilt/confession is confirmed. This is precisely the type of heinous crime that deserves death, not life in prison. This lady killed an infant with a sledgehammer, and because the kid wasn't dead enough, she slit the kid's throat. She has no reason being on this earth anymore. I agree with a post, finally. QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 08:23 PM) What do you mean playing field for victims and their families? Weve spent 20,000 years creating a system where defendants are not put at a disadvantage, Im not about to screw that up because bad things happen. If shes guilty, shell go to jail. Maybe today, tomorrow or 2 years from now. People have b****ed at me in my line of work for years, dating back to when I was a kid working at a concession stand on a golf course. Now I can b**** about somebody else's line of work. I happen to think the court system is flawed. I also happen to think the medical profession is flawed. So let's fix it?? Nah, it has to stay this way forever. ... Why???? QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 08:39 PM) Do the victims have the right to hearing a complete accounting of the facts and evidence from the police as well? To be sure that the confession they're reading is one they should believe? Sure. I'm just saying in these type cases, do it quickly. Get her in court and convicted. These type of crimes are defining the world today's kids will be living in. These horrific crimes are becoming normal. This piece of s*** woman doesn't deserve a lot IMO.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 08:15 PM) We have the best judicial system in the world because even the most guilty are deserving of the same defense as the most innocent. /shrugs The last problem of any country is giving defendants too many rights. It just isnt a real issue. Are all u guys attorneys? So nothing can be improved in our judicial system?? It's perfect as it, with all these delays in cut and dried cases?? This is a family murder where EVERYONE agrees she is guilty including her. As a taxpayer I happen to be appalled at all the delays. Where are the rights for the gawddarn victims???? Tell me please.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 09:06 PM) Just say it greg, you dont believe in due process. You know, there are many times that people were believed to have committed heinous crimes, and even said so under interrogation, and it turns out they didnt. Just ask the West Memphis 3 about that. Those kids were railroaded to death row simply for looking different and being outsiders, and they were interrogated until they admitted guilt. Im not saying this lady is innocent, she certainly looks like she is guilty as sin, but that doesnt mean we string her up in the town square and let her hang immediately. I'm just talking about this case. Nobody is suggesting she was coerced into making a statement she killed her grandchild. Why can't we change the system to put the alleged murderers at a disadvantage and not the victims' families? She can have a defense. Just do it on society's terms. Why waste time? We are talking about taking a sledgehammer to a f***ing baby. If you want a civilized society this s*** HAS TO STOP. I say change the system to give a better playing field for the victims and their families.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 13, 2013 -> 10:39 PM) In this case, like all cases in the US, she is innocent until proven guilty. She is entitled to a strong defense in front of an unbiased judge or jury. I support our system, you reject it. We have appeals in this country because we have so many rights. I am fundamentally opposed to the taking away of rights. You have no problem with that. I can express outrage, horror, and empathy for this crime without demanding an immediate execution. There are countries around the world where that does happen, and none of them are where I would like to live. I disagree she is entitled to a strong defense in a case this cut and dried. She said she did it. Her relatives know she did it. I believe she is entitled to a defense but it should be at society's terms. i.e. A QUICK TRIAL. Let her team of lawyers scramble to get it together quickly, get her in court and get her sentenced. Look, what makes you believe our court system is working well?? You don't think it can be improved?? I happen to think so. In a case this blatant, this case where everybody is in agreement she did it, including the murderess, why can't we get her in the f***ing courtroom SOON and convicted?? You are saying I'm against America's system of justice. I am all for people getting their day in court. I am NOT FOR giving these people all sorts of time and the benefit of the doubt when THEY ARE GUILTY OF HEINOUS ACTS AND THERE IS NO CHANCE THEY ARE INNOCENT. NONE. Why do you think our current system of delay and zillions of appeals is the right way to conduct business in this decaying country of ours? You seem to accept this current system as the ONLY way we can and should do business. Why is that? I want improvements. And I want her in court soon so we can get on with the conviction.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 13, 2013 -> 08:58 PM) The problem is that: You do not believe in innocent until proven guilty. You do not believe in an unbiased jury. Therefor you do not believe in the American system of justice. How can you simultaneously claim the system is flawed and demand killing people sooner without appeals? You do understand we have sentenced to death people who later are proven to be innocent? There is very strong evidence that at least one, and possibly more have been executed who were innocent? It is bad enough when innocent people have spent months, years, or even decades locked up for crimes that they did not commit. Once we have killed someone, it is impossible to go back and bring them back to life. I'm talking about this case. She said she did it. The family knows she did it. There is no conspiracy. Yes I want her stricken from the earth very soon, not having to wait years for a trial. If that makes me bad instead of the system, then I'm bad. I contend the system and our world can be very bad. I'm not wrong on this issue IMO. I'm not blaming you or criticizing you. I think the world would be a better place if there was more outrage against people like this woman when everybody knows she did it than people defending the legal system when somebody like me speaks out against this monster of a woman. That's just me.