Chisoxfn

What is wrong with Corbin?

Glad you mentioned Felicio. He is in much better shape this year and I do hope this burn helps make him a bit more tradeable. I think its going to take prolonged run of decent play though, before you can move him.

Since it is the off-season, we've closed the diamond club. All MLB discussion should go on this page. Should be an exciting off-season and hopefully it is one that significantly moves this franchise forward!

I'd be interested in Yasmani Grandal as a catcher. Was bummed when the Dodgers made him a qualifying offer.

Have the Sox fallen so far, that the Tribune literally hasn't had a writer come up with anything relative to the news out there. I'd have thought this would have been the type of thing you'd have seen some beat guys start to talk about/discuss.

The worst part of these rumors is they will drag on for like a month or two (are they Boras clients?)

I'm starting my campaign for Harper. The team needs more pizazz vs. Machado who is essentially "Trout" with a bit less WAR (i.e., your steadily great player whose most exciting bit is whether he "hustles" all the time).

Here's my question. We have discussions in the other thread about who is the better baseball player, but if you were purely looking at it from a business perspective, do you think one guy moves the needle more and if so, how significantly? I honestly don't know that Machado moves the needle at all, however, I think Harper moves the needle significantly. He's much watch TV. He's the baseball player with personality and bizazz who is pretty much the face of MLB (despite Trout and many others being better players). I think Machado doesn't register much more than a blip from a marketability perspective (did he really make the Oriole's a much watch team)? I think for Machado to move the needle, the franchise has to win games. I think Harper moves the needle alone and gives the front office a bit more time for the rest of the team to catch up. Eventually Harper alone won't work...but I think Harper alone is a game changer in your TV negotiations and if you build a winner around him, it could be the type of move that catapults the franchise forward. On the flipside, the downfall to both of these guys is if they get hurt and/or stink the vast majority of the contract (i.e., go all Jason Heyward).

Its not happening and I think you have to be careful to make sure players know you are "interested" in them. Cash matters but I presume there are going to ultimately be a couple offers all in the same ball park, so than the pitch becomes more important.

Plus its a franchise that literally owns its market and is one of the most marketable teams in the world. You really can't compare the Bulls spending habits (a premier franchise in the NBA) to that of the White Sox (one of the least marketable teams in the big league at this point in time).

Yep - I completely agree. It seems like a team that gets him is going to get a better on the field "value".

Yep - Its why from a baseball perspective, I like Machado more, but if Harper leads to more eyes and a bigger TV contract, etc (plus general excitement / shift of franchise), it could end up leading to better coffers for other baseball moves, etc. Hard to say. Harper could also be better than Manny, however, from a pure WAR perspective, I'd bet on Machado putting up better numbers than Harper over the course of the contract. Of course, Harper has the upside to be the best player in the game.

Arci has played surprisingly decent this year.

Yeah - This certainly makes it harder on the Bears. The good thing is they are a young team, which hopefully has a better chance of navigating through those waters healthy. But that is going to be a tough toll on the players. Lets just hope they play well and crush it (and maintain health). Its been fun regularly watching the Bears compete. I am a dead horse on this...but it is absurd that they don't have 2 bye weeks, given how beat up football players get. Stick one between your Thursday night game and do the other at random. NFL should do its best to ensure quality TV at all times, while trying to keep players healthy. Having 2 different bye weeks would be huge. Secondarily, it could create more opportunity for continued trade deadline momentum since an extra bye week can potentially give you more time to acclimate a new player into your system/scheme (mid-season).

I know I've said it a few times already, but I still think the "marketability" of Harper could play a huge part in the Sox plans. They have had dismal ratings and Harper is one of the few "must watch players" in the game today. While I think Machado is the smarter signing (from a pure baseball perspective), I can't ignore the fact that signing Harper could be much more impactful to the teams marketing and TV deals. If I were running the White Sox, I think I'd probably put a lean towards Harper for all of those reasons and in fact, could use those reasons as a basis for overpaying. The Sox obviously need to win, but signing Harper in an of itself makes the franchise far more watchable to the general public. And for a franchise who literally is amongst the worst in baseball in that category...spending money on a guy who can dramatically shift that balance of power singlehandedly is huge. I might be overselling what Harper brings and leads to, but if you can get your young players to rebound and Harper plays good....its going to get a lot more eyeballs than if the same thing happened with Machado, imo.

It wasn't exactly that, but it absolutely was a response to the new labor agreement and JR being frustrated.

So by both...does that mean...literally they want to sign both or they are going to go after both, hoping for one? I mean to me it is a no-brainer, if you are going to make a dent for a star, both of these guys are that so why wouldn't you. That photoshopped view of Harper in a Sox uni looked pretty sweet.

That is actually the thing that sucks to me most....in football, more than any sport, people tend to plan weekends to go watch their favorite team..whether a Vikings fan heading into see the game or a Bears fan from Socal flying in to see the game, it stinks if you were planning a late night flight out on Sunday and now have to reschedule your flight.

Hahaha. The problem is there is a fine line between being James Harden and an inefficient chucker. The fact that Harden can get to the line and be so efficient (plus be a pretty effective creator) is so unique. If he was just a little less good at any of those areas...or all three, it is a huge difference between being who he is and being an inefficient chucker.

Just win the first two of the 3 and anything that happens on Thanksgiving can be "gravy"

I don't know...if they did, he'd be high on my list. Kind of like when the Eagles got rid of Reid...I was screaming for the Bears to do the smart thing and hire him....no, we had to get creative and hire Trestman, etc. Thankfully we've found Nagy, who I legit believe in, but man, sometimes teams try to get cute when generational coaching talents are out there. Harbaugh is a really good one, imo. Not quite a Rams wunderkid kind of guy (and I legit believe Nagy could put himself in that camp) but he's a step below it. He'd do wonders for the Packers as I'm not a Mike McCarthy fan. That said, Packers DC is legit.

This is going to sound absurd, but Parker's game reminds me of James Harden. He loves that top of the key iso-game. The problem is, he just isn't "James Harden". Not as good of a shooter and not as good of a distributor, but I do see similarities to how they play the game. I actually think Parker has a lot more upside than I originally thought because I think he's got a lot of individual talent and you can see he has been getting quicker as the season goes in (bad sign about the off-season work he put in). Now hopefully people understand what I'm trying to say with the above...and don't overreact as I'm not saying he is or will ever be James Harden.

Harbaugh will come in.

Its going to be a challenge...but this team is capable (of making it or blowing it...but they have the talent).

Lions have beat the Pats and the Packers. I recognize Green Bay has its issues, but Pats are very good. Lions seems to have this jekyl and hyde thing going, but Bears are nowhere near good enough to consider other teams "bad" and play past them. The Bills game was a weird game cause they did a lot of really bad things that would have cost them against a normal opponent. Stupid penalties, missed plays, just a lot of really bad, especially for a game you win as big as they did. Its the same type of "bad" I've seen in the games that they've blown too, which makes me concerned.