LDF

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2015 -> 11:46 PM) In a rape case, not enough evidence to prosecute doesn't mean much at all. The fact remains that after all this time and money, the guy still can't stay out of trouble. It isn't hard to imagine a franchise having enough of Kane's stupidity, or even just having a fear that eventually he will miss time because of his stupidity. excellent post. your explanation is a lot better than what i was trying to make. nice

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 26, 2015 -> 11:42 PM) Why would you move him if there were no charges for anything? All we have is media rumors and an investigation based on information mostly "leaked." i do not have a choice but to answer this with 2 comments already stated. 1. a higher moral standard, b/c 2. no matter how anyone looks at it, it still may affect the team and org in a bad lite. (pr hit)

QUOTE (BamaDoc @ Aug 26, 2015 -> 07:34 PM) You need to protect the best assets whether arms or position players. I had hoped those with more knowledge of our system would bring forth players on the bubble that we might better understand off season player movement. If the 40 is full, a draftable player may be included in a trade because you feel you may lose him anyway. Or it might explain multi player trades where you give up 3 for 2 if you feel your 40 man is tight. In the past with a weaker farm system this was less of an issue. Now as our farm system appears deeper, you want to protect the right people. It would be good in the mid season or end of season prospect lists to include if on the 40 man and if not what year must they be protected by in order to not be drafted. after rereading this post, i came to this understanding. i believe the season will need to be over for several reason. 1. the sox list of the 40 will be needed to be updated, esp with prospects / players who will have to, b/c of their service time. (i too do not know this part of the protected date) 2. all will know which FA's will be given a QO. (b/c this will tell how some teams may address their needs via trades)

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 26, 2015 -> 10:22 PM) He is a throw-in at best. If he doesn't substantially improve he will be a strong non-tender candidate after the 2016 season. His value is similar to where Viciedo's was before 2014. excellent comparison. i was looking at Viciedo in baseball reference, this afternoon. you are right, i am also wondering if he would improve next season, like adding more power.

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Aug 26, 2015 -> 07:03 PM) I can't speak with certainty and I certainly haven't been told anything specific but if you look at this organization since the new owners took over I've gotten a strong sense that they want to win but they want to win their way under their conditions. This organization (and I'm not saying they should) has always felt they were "smarter" then the fans, agents, the media when it comes to general concepts like how to build a winner and what that takes to accomplish. I don't think it's a question of 'getting it' or 'understanding things' I think it's more along the lines of 'we're going to do it our way' (for better or for worse. Mark you are correct in this , you reasoning on how the sox can do it. i have always thought, as you said, they can build the team that will win it all and with minimum expense so the owners can max the profit. it is all about the economics of the business.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Aug 26, 2015 -> 05:10 PM) One thing to keep in mind is that it's MUCH easier to take a moral stand when you have already won 3 Stanley Cups. I'm not saying the Hawks would trade Kane, but it's more of a possibility because they already have this 7-year run to show for his time here. a great pov. this is a great core the hawks have, and i believe that they can win a couple more SC. but, and i will use your wording, a moral stand. i can see the hawks gm using kane to get under the cap. i just think if this is the end of this incident, it would be a huge mistake to move him.

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Aug 26, 2015 -> 03:57 PM) My apologies for the mistake and for offending you. It won't happen again. Mark why???? you know how many times i offend people here.... on a daily basis.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2015 -> 03:00 PM) Guys like that are exactly why stats aren't why you hate a player. and i remember when i was taking about him and his personality, i always thought you surround a "problem child" with good company people, it would or could overcome all the negative baggage.

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Aug 26, 2015 -> 02:22 PM) the sports world, as well as sports media, changed IMMENSELY over the 21 years between quotes. Let's not forget that. And also, in that time, he was crucified for comments he made by fans and the media. Oh, and you don't have to put quotations marks when talking about the official site of the sox. It's operated by the team and owned by the league. I figure a "journalist" like yourself would understand the meaning of "official" oooOOO snarky.....

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2015 -> 02:52 PM) How do you get proper value for Patrick Kane? an excellent question..... frankly the answer is the hawks will not get proper value. but the hit on the horrible news plus the pr hit the hawks may get, would the hawks feel that it is better to get rid of him. for me, i wouldn't move him.

QUOTE (BamaDoc @ Aug 26, 2015 -> 02:10 PM) ,I could see a guy like Peter Tago who is 23, former first rounder, mid nineties fastball who looks like the light has come on in our organization. Now AA relieving his walk rate is about half his career rate and k rate over 10. If I was another org I would pay 50k to bring him to spring training and maybe stash in the back of a bullpen for a year if he isn't protected. If it works you get a cheap arm for years, if not small cash loss. arms.... the org needs more arms. entering this off season, i expect the sox will trade their surplus of pitchers and major prospects to acquire assets to help the parent team.

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Aug 26, 2015 -> 12:37 PM) .270 is good but he could also be .230 ish that is why i rather not deal or get rid of MJ and Sanchez in the off season. i really would like to see if they can replicate the same stats, well for sanchez at least. and for MJ see if he can defend.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Aug 26, 2015 -> 12:06 PM) I'd like to see Sanchez get time it short for the rest of the season. His bat really is light for second base. I would also consider Thompson in left and let Melky DH. Avi is younger, hits just as well as Melky, and needs the work. Melky is shaping up as dead money himself. statistically speaking, what are your expectation for him????

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Aug 25, 2015 -> 10:30 PM) Sorry, I should of clarified. Kyle Seager and Chris Taylor from the Mariners. my bad and many thanks for the nice way of correcting me. peace.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Aug 25, 2015 -> 07:23 PM) I wonder if Latos would be willing to take a 1 year deal to up his value because he will only be 28 next season. Then, have a rotation of Sale, Quintana, Latos, Rodon, Danks/Johnson. Sign Heyward. Trade Montas, Micah, Hawkins, Davidson, and Danish for Seager and Taylor or Longoria and McGee. i am really sorry .... i really tried very hard not to make this post. but if you were the dodgers, would you make that trade???

QUOTE (WBWSF @ Aug 25, 2015 -> 10:02 PM) I don't think JR cares what his legacy is. I read where he once said that he has had a very happy life. Owning part of the White Sox, Bulls and the United Center would make most people happy. Forbes magazine said JR is a billionaire. Not bad for somebody who grew up in a middle class family in Brooklyn. There has been good and bad about his White Sox ownership. THE GOOD: 1) He kept the White Sox in Chicago. Eddie Einhorn and some of the other investors wanted to move to Florida Granted JR got a sweetheart deal from the State of Illinois with the new stadium but believe me Einhorn wanted to move to Florida. JR didn't. 2) JR helped the White Sox become a very profitable franchise. With the different deals the White Sox have Forbes magazine has said the White Sox franchise is 14th in total revenue of the 30 MLB teams. Anybody who thinks the White Sox are not making money is definitely misreading the situation. THe BAD:1) 5 Playoff appearances in 35 years is nothing to write home about. 2) The Sportsvision fiasco. Having Sportsvision before the Chicagoland area was wired for cable was nuts. If the area had been wired for cable it probably would of succeeded. It wasn't and Sportsvision flopped. 3) The New Comiskey Park 2/ Cell. I'm convinced the new stadium has to be the biggest mistake in the history of the franchise. When JR was looking for a new stadium for the White Sox in the 1980's the City of Chicago wanted to build a baseball stadium in the South Loop at Roosevelt + Clark. JR turned down the offer and wanted the new stadium to be built in Addison on land he owned. When that didn't work out the City of Chicago South Loop stadium offer was off the table. The White Sox wound up at its present location. JR should of taking the initial offer by the City of Chicago with the South Loop stadium. Everybody would of been better off with a South Loop stadium. By everybody I mean the White Sox franchise. White Sox fans and the City of Chicago. Instead they're located in a area that is not popular. The entire perception of the White Sox franchise would of been better in the South Loop. It's bad enough the stadium was built where it was but they built a stadium where nobody wants to sit in the upper deck. I've read numerous times where the upper deck was JRs doing entirely. He wanted more suites which made the upper deck what it is today. Sometime, somewhere someday the White Sox will have a new owner. The new owner will inherit this bad stadium situation. I think the current lease runs through 2027. I'm expecting the next owner sometime around the year 2025 to start looking for a new stadium for the White Sox in a better location. Like I said earlier I don't think JR cares what his legacy is. From what I can see his legacy with the White Sox is not a good one. very good addition to the other articles. the long and short is the owners screwed up on bad management and executive decision making dooming this team to the state it is in and thru bad decision making on the personnel in the FO.

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Aug 25, 2015 -> 10:02 PM) Interesting discussion here so far. Well done. Again just putting some points out there not advocating either way, devil's advocate more or less. 1. The reply to those who say winning once is better than numerous times getting in without doing so is, "well, you can't win the World Series if you don't make the postseason..." Today the playoffs much like the NCAA basketball tournament is a crap shoot. Match-up's, health, the bounce of a ball or a call (or non call) decides games which in a short series or a one and done scenario can be the difference between winning and losing. Jerry Koosman told me once that he thought it was harder to win in the playoffs then the regular season. I asked why and he said because over the course of a 162 games the best team usually wins, that's not the case in the playoffs especially a short series. 2. When you look back at the ownership of JR and EE it's sad that the Sox have actually wasted more chances to make the playoffs than they actually got in. Sox have made the post season under their stewardship in: 83, 93, 00, 05 and 08. They wasted reasonable chances to get in in 84 (first place at the break, had won seven straight, collapsed in the second half), 91 (one back on August 11 then lost 15 of 17), 94 (1st place at the time play was halted via labor impasse driven in large part by JR), 96 (40-21 in June, finished with 85 wins, collapsed in the second half because of a bad bullpen and no 5th starter), 03 (had a two game lead with 18 games to go, finished three games behind Minnesota. Lost five straight to them in the final two weeks. Again the lack of a reliable 5th starter during the season cost them dearly), 06 (57 wins in the first half, finished with 90, collapsed in the second half), 10 (1st place on August 1st, by mid August were four back, finished six behind Twins) and 12 (had won five straight, had a three game lead with 15 games to go, went 4-11). That's a sad legacy. *Note I don't count 04 in this because even though they were in first place at the break they had lost both Ordonez and Thomas for the season. No team could survive that. Mark nice write up and with that, i am going to do the bold, and keep it a neutral as possible. and the sox never made the necessary addition to ensure the success. even when they made the playoff. they stood pat when they should have brought in a player to help.

QUOTE (shipps @ Aug 25, 2015 -> 10:14 PM) LOL All he said in bold was build your team to make the playoffs as much as possible. Thats not nice. i thought it was understood from the previous post that i made, build the team and continue to building it. thru new money, new players who may be worth taking a look via fa, and see what the draft is producing. young player ready to crack the lineup. also, do not let the team get stagnant and signing most of the players to long contracts. lets further look at the philly team when they finally had their run. they had alot of players with a burgeoning contracts to hold down the team to further move assets. so in other words, continue to build the team to have a influx of new blood.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 25, 2015 -> 08:43 PM) No...I think one wc card game doesn't count. I don't even count that as making the playoffs. The playoffs start with an actual multi-game series. While I was disappointed in 2008, it was still fun. It is hard to consistently make the playoffs, let alone win the series...you really can't do the 2nd with any sort of success if you can't accomplish the first. My view is, build your teams to make the playoffs as much as possible...then see if you get hot. Play the odds in your favor. Best team doesn't always win in baseball, in fact, I'd argue of all major sports, the top team in baseball probably has the lowest correlation rate of winning a title then any other sport. I presume basketball would be the highest percentage followed by football and then hockey. Hockey is probably the closets to baseball. I know one thing...sucking these past few years isn't what I want and I wouldn't want to suck for 10 years just so I have a shot to win once and then suck again. I wouldn't want to be the Marlins...two amazing seasons and a bunch of crap in between. nice..... really nice.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 25, 2015 -> 08:27 PM) I don't think they would. I think if you consistently contend, you will get fan support. Will they get cranky and will you see some reduction, certainly (look at the 90's Braves and how at times, after years of making the playoffs, fans got complacent wanting / needing more). That said, even those complacent years, they still drew very well. Bottom line, consistent winning is the only true recipe to succeed from an attendance perspective. Sure, some times can succeed anyway, but it takes a very rare situation for a consistent winner to not draw well. And the only real exception I can think of is the Rays, which is point #1 for why they either need a new stadium and / or need to move to another market (not sure that a stadium would do any good). Honestly, if I were MLB and the Sox did all of the things Mark outlined and still couldn't draw, then to be frank, a change would have to be made because that just isn't acceptable. I'll also be honest, I'd probably rather be in the playoffs 10+ times in 20 years (and not win it) then twice in 20 years, but win it once. Bottom line, those other seasons would be miserable and that one season, while amazing, wouldn't make up for the rest. Heck, just look how antsy the entire fanbase is, just 10 years removed from the series. We have been awful the past 3 years and it isn't fun. $$ Bill Writz, said it all. appear that the FO's is doing something, make the playoff and the attendance will be near max. thus making the money that the owners want. can anyone imagine what the sox fans would be doing if they made the playoff for 3 or 4 straight yrs??????

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Aug 25, 2015 -> 08:05 PM) Daniel: I can certainly see both sides especially from an economic / business / attendance stand point. Think the Sox would be having the issues they are having in attendance and media coverage if they made the playoffs in say 2000, 2003 (which they blew), 2005, 2006 (which they blew), 2008, 2010 (which they blew) and 2012 (which they blew) even if they didn't win the title in 2005? It's a very complicated question depending on your perspective I guess. Mark i am going to use the black hawks as this example, the hawks won 1 SC.... they did not sit on their laurels and enjoyed it, they went to work to improve the team ....... the hawks could have easily have reap all the benefits from winning the big one, instead they spent money to make it even better. this falls on the sox ownership. again basing on opinions. that is all that anyone can give.

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Aug 25, 2015 -> 07:27 PM) Daniel: That brings up the age old argument which I don't have an answer for. Would you rather win one title or have the chance to win one (no guarantees) by consistently making the playoffs, like say the Twins in the 00's? Guess it depends on your point of view. Mark Mark, you make an interesting POV / statement. while i am not as learned as you and many i this site, i have always maintained that that cliche you wrote was made to justify the outcome of the time and the events of that team. having that 1 title, fans and many can look back and justify that not making the playoff was ok. b/c of that 1 title. making the playoff many times as just as good as never making the playoff. it is nothing but excuses to vindicate the team and the org in general. my point of view is my own and i do not look into the fluff of that org spews..... so i can say, i am greedy. i want it all. i want the playoff, many times with the title wins. good org people who are smart and yeah, is some cases ruthless can position the team to make that run. but again, this is on me and my POV.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 25, 2015 -> 05:51 PM) Viciedo? Where did that question come from? Davidson has improved his D, but his 30%+ K rate in a 3rd trip through AAA tells me he'll be a disaster in the majors offensively. Delmonico is still a year or two off if ever, and his defense is a question. His hitting hasn't been spectacular either, and I don't think his chances of being a starting 3B are very good. Though I wouldn't write him off. i am bored and he is in AAA.... Cha

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Aug 25, 2015 -> 05:57 PM) Exactly. 11th means we lose protection of the top 10 picks in case we want to make a run at Heyward or another top free agent. It also means the Sox didn't play well enough to warrant much enthusiasm for next year. If we ended up with a decent finish to season and win 81-82 games, I'd be fine with that if it meant our young guys were succeeding and we can count on them for next year (although I'm not sure how much they can show us in 5 weeks). for me, i am counting on the owners as the wildcard here. this yr, they took their lumps, they took the media picturing them as bumbling along, esp leading up to the trade deadline and most of all i am counting on them being pissed off for the general overall performance of the 2015 season. they may take a trip to the fa's market.... now the question is who might it be for.

QUOTE (Knuckles @ Aug 25, 2015 -> 04:40 PM) Sports Mockery (I know, hence take with a grain of salt) is reporting Kane will not be charged with rape due to lack of evidence. talking about missing the silver bullet. i wonder if a civil suit will happen, or would kane and legal rep just buys her off. now for the big question, does the hawks still look into dealing him???