Chisoxfn

QUOTE (raBBit @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 08:16 AM) I've heard the market for Robertson described as "ice cold." Sox aren't getting anything of significance for Robertson. Which to me means, why even try. Just wait until the deadline..see if he kicks butt and if he does, you can get more for him. It isn't like payroll is a major issue.

I think one day we are all going to login and there will be a report that Q has been traded. Seems like whomever else the Sox are talking to have quiet lips and with everyone staying radio silent, we all might be surprised at who acquires him or how quick it goes down.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 16, 2016 -> 11:44 AM) Like really? First off, the deal was going to include Lavine and Dunn. Second, I don't think anyone was jumping at the deal. I want Butler traded cause this team is never going anywhere with him as the number 1 guy but I certainly wasn't jumping at the proposed deal of the Wolves. And calling anyone foolish right now with this team still stuck in the mud is pretty ridiculous. Trading a star in this league is a foolish notion...period. When it is a star who is signed to a mega cheap deal, it is even more foolish. Having Butler makes it far more likely to contend then not having him. I don't believe the Wolves were ever willing to include Lavine. The Boston deal was more likely and even in that deal, you weren't getting loaded...maybe you get lucky on whatever the Nets next pick becomes. I'm not saying front office is great or we are great, but trading Butler would have been an awful thing to do.

QUOTE (buhbuhburrrrlz @ Dec 16, 2016 -> 02:30 PM) http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2680788...ng-unemployment "John Fox is likely gone, the coaches and officials with whom B/R spoke believe. One of the names that has come up for this spot is Lions offensive coordinator Jim Bob Cooter." I don't see the Bears dumping Fox for at least one more season tho If we dump him for Jim Bob Cooter, I'll be pissed. Fox probably will too, since he had tried to hire him IIRC. Either way, first order of business should be to make sure front office is willing and able to make Fangio one of, if not the highest paid assistant in the league. Will be interesting if there is truth to this.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 16, 2016 -> 12:50 PM) OK, in that case, those two trades could surely make for a super-large jump. But when it comes to overall farm systems, top 10 is going to be a heavy component of the overall rankings (including how elite your top guys are). 2 might be high, but clearly a top 5, and I'd be dissapointed if we were anything but #1/#2 after a Q deal.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Dec 16, 2016 -> 06:10 AM) This is what Keith Law said: Nick: If you were Lunhow, would you trade Musgrove + Martes + Tucker for Quintana, and why or why not? I go back and forth as an Astros fan but think I’d be happy with him pulling the trigger. Klaw: If I’m Luhnow I do it. If I’m Hahn I’m not even countering because it’s so low. FWIW, I don’t know that that was ever discussed by the clubs. Seems to echo Shack & I's sentiments and I hope Hahn has the same opinion. I also hope the rest of the baseball world values Q like some of us on here do (in the sense that he is a borderline ace whose contract essentially values him at an "ace" level).

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 16, 2016 -> 11:14 AM) Exactly how I feel. When you have a star, or in this case a star and an aging star, there is always a way out. Its a star league...they aren't going anywhere with this roster, but all of you who wanted to deal Butler for Dunn and a couple other middling picks are looking awfully foolish. Stars in the NBA don't grow on trees. Gar and company have failed to surround that talent with the right players, but the team will need to pivot and whether it is Chris Paul or others, they need to find a way to replace Rondo with an upgraded point guard plus add more shooting / enhanced talent off the bench. Ideally, you'd upgrade the bigs as well, albeit Lopez / Taj are the least of the Bulls worries. The terrible bench and the fact that Rondo stinks are the major things separating them from being an upper echelon team (I didn't say title contender, cause they'd need to find at a total superstar plus enhance depth and even then, with the Warriors so talented, it will be hard to address).

I was pretty surprised to here the talk of "pink" slips from the commentators, especially given Reggie Miller has a personal connection with Hoiberg. I don't like Hoiberg, but the bench play isn't necessarily his fault. I just don't think he is going to maximize our talent. That said, I was glad we sent Niko a message for his crap play (by benching him). We need to get Denzel a run where he has the ball (and if we aren't going to do it on the team, we should let him get a bit of run for a week or two in the Dleague so he can get some minutes and regain confidence in his shot). At least they weren't outscored in the 4th, haha.

Very very sad. Thoughts and prayers go out to him and his family. Such a class act!!!

Classic Fangio: Kevin Fishbain ‏@kfishbain 2h2 hours ago Vic Fangio: "The group we inherited wasn’t built for the 4-3, either ... They weren’t built for anything, so we had to start at ground zero"

QUOTE (raBBit @ Dec 14, 2016 -> 02:10 PM) If Shuck plays any games in Chicago this year when the Sox have Tilson/May/Engel I will be livid. There is negative value in playing that guy. Someone told me he was a Robin guy last year in ST. Could be a Renteria guy too, but we need young players out there even if it's just to confirm they're not of MLB quality. I'm not saying "Shuck" is that guy, but there absolutely can be a value in having those more role model type veterans around to help in the development phase. I have no idea how Shuck went about his business, but you absolutely want some guys that the young players can look up to as role models as to what it takes to succeed and excel at the big league level. I think that is critical. Coaches can only do so much. Some might say its a bunch of BS, but there is a big difference in the work ethics of various players and even just the focus / preparation and even mental aspects of the game. The mental tole from the long season, including the various struggles, is far greater in baseball then any other sport and having those quality vets who have been there and battled through it is huge.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Dec 14, 2016 -> 01:59 PM) Castillo signs with the O's. 1 year / $6M, with a $7M player option for year 2. Not a bad deal. Even though he's pretty bad defensively, I would have loved that deal. I'd rather take a shot on some guy or give it to our own options. If we bring in a veteran catcher on a FA move, I want them to be able to catch the ball and work great with pitchers. I could care less if they can hit cause we aren't winning in the next year or two, but they better be able to help develop our young arms. If we go with a younger guy who has bellied up, I'm more okay being a bit flexible, but we should still make sure we have a guy who can really do a good job handling the pitchers in game.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Dec 8, 2016 -> 04:52 PM) I like Hank Conger. Good with pitchers, solid framer, has pop, switch hitter, no arm though. He is not a bad "buy low" candidate.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Dec 8, 2016 -> 04:24 PM) Collins will not end up as a catcher. With us being in a rebuilding mode, the ability to be a bit more patient with his defensive development (vs. pushing to get his bat up to the show sooner vs. later) might allow us to have a longer rope in terms of seeing if Collins can stick. His value is greatly enhanced if he does stick at catcher though and the while the White Sox front office has struggled developing position players, I do think they have a decent track record at improving our catchers defensive capabilities (both Josh Phegley & more notably Tyler Flowers come to mind as guys who had pretty poor reputations who enhanced their values...not saying either were elite, but I do believe the Sox development team maximized the defensive skillsets of those particular players.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 8, 2016 -> 09:09 AM) That's crazy, I kinda of want to see him in action now. I read a few things talking about his size and I legitimately thought it had to be a typo. I've never heard of a catcher that size. Made me think. To answer the original question, I think of Austin Barnes as a guy I'd personally target...I thought we could get him dangling Frazier or Robertson, but now obviously less likely, unless it is in a bigger deal involving Q. I suppose they could have interest in Nate Jones in a set-up role though. Barnes needs to focus on catching still as he has defensive things he has to work on, but he looks like a guy who has a decent shot at being a very solid catcher (and he has other skill-sets in the sense that he can be a super sub, although on a rebuilding club, there is a lot of value seeing if he can stick behind the plate). I wonder how much the Dodgers have "soured" on him given his lack of success during various cups of coffee over the past two years and whether we could even get him for a Putnam/Jennings type of guy. I say that because when it comes to relievers like that, I'm more then willing to move him for a guy who has a shot at being an everyday player (not saying there is a guarantee, but none of us would be shocked if Barnes was a late bloomer who become a good everyday catcher.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 14, 2016 -> 11:01 AM) With the new caps, it really isn't going to work like that anymore. I mean they could spend over this year, but all of the best Latin American talent is signed, so pretty much it would have to come from Cuba or Asia. Who out there is worth signing now that is worth handicapping ourselves for the next two years? I can't think of anyone. Then factor in that when with the new caps, those dollars should buy a whole lot more players than it used to in the next July 2 class. On top of that, this the era the Sox need to be able to sign as many players as possible for each season to load up on talent, instead of punting on two full years worth of international talent in the middle of a rebuild. I am referring to trading for the extra few million that we can acquire and then using the resources. Not going over some soft cap (cause the cap is now hard). The poster I replied to implied that we are too cheap to trade for additional international cap (and spend the couple mill extra bucks on that).

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Dec 14, 2016 -> 06:56 AM) Do they actually trade the funds or just he ability to spend the funds. I still do not see the White Sox spending any more money then they are comfortable with. They do not spend in free agency or internationally and will give nice contracts to players that give them a hometown discount. If this strategy is not changed I see no reason to believe they are going to spend the money doing things differently. This is similar to the Bears in that they spend enough to fulfill the criteria of spending but then short change the organization in other areas. Otani will end up the Yankees, Dodgers, cubs, Giants or Mariners. We just spent $6M on Holland...if that money is in liu of going aggressive internationally, well all I can say is pathetic. Whether we can actually acquire the slots, that is another question, but the cash absolutely shouldn't be an issue (and if it was, we should have allocated the Holland funds on international signings first).

I took an anthropology class in college, which I thought was general anthro, but instead focused half of the semester on this particular civilization. I remember nothing of it, other then vague bits and pieces...but somehow I got an A (which probably goes back to why I was taking anthro as an undergrad). The real reason was, I thought it would be fun, and the class was horrific, cause I was expecting a more modern view of anthro.

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Dec 14, 2016 -> 07:59 AM) During games, I root for the Bears to lose. It's easy. They're bad, there aren't that many games, and football is my third or fourth favorite sport. With the Sox it's more complicated for me. The Cubs turned losing into Bryant, Baez, etc. They may rip off 3 ringz in 5 years, and it happened with losing, smart drafting and THEN free agent signings. But to mimic it, we have to be very bad for at least a few years. To jump right back in in 2018 is taking half measures (but not like the usual Sox 'half measure', granted) Now, the Sox have been cutting guys that those bad Cubs teams had at the forefront (i.e. Mike Olt) so it may be very difficult for us to be THAT bad. Even after a total firesale, we probably still have quality contributors like rodon/anderson/saladino - and then other guys like melky, lawrie and shields who are still veterans and capable of creating wins. So a couple questions: how bad can we be, and can you root for badness, or is it not in your makeup to do so? No...I can't root for losses, but when we are in a rebuild, I can easier stomach the losses because they are part of a greater good. Even in football, during the game, I'm rooting for the Bears to do the best possible job...because you know...the guy you draft isn't going to be who makes your team a winner...it also will involve a lot of the guys current on the roster (who you hope to get better).

Type of move a rebuilding club should do. See if we can turn him into something we can leverage for more assets.

That was a pathetic loss. The ball movement got so bad after we went up big, but the laziness / lack of effort on the defensive side is what really got me. I really really can't stand Mirotic.

I think our offer involved Gio Gonzalez and Josh Fields plus others. While Fields clearly busted, hindsight would tell you the Marlins would have been far better off taking the White Sox offer because Gio was far more valuable then anything they ever benefited from (and it wasn't like they got anything when they flipped Andrew Miller).

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 02:48 PM) What was the rumored deal again? For some reason, I don't remember it at all. Tigers robbed them because they gave up no one that ever did anything for the Fish. If I recall, it was Andrew Miller (who eventually turned dominate, but long after he left the Fish) and Cameron Maybin (who has bounced all over the place, but never was anything worth while). Don't remember who the other pieces were. We didn't want Dontrell which from what I always heard at the time, was what drove the Fish to take their offer. I don't recall who / what we were dangling. It is the danger in these type of deals though, cause the Marlins were totally fleeced (in hindsight). Like that deal was an absurd steal.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 02:32 PM) No, he wanted Matt Cassell, it had nothing to do with Tebow and Orton. He tried to trade for Cassell and it failed, Cutler and his agent caught wind of it and when they talked to him about it, it got ugly and Cutler said "trade me". Then he ended up with Orton and drafted Tebow. He definitely didn't choose Tebow/Orton over Cutler, he just ended up with those two because he handled his business like a jackass Yep and no one is implying he should be in charge of personnel. That was a horrific idea in totality by Denver, but I don't think it takes away from the fact that right now, he's an extremely qualified candidate and one of the few guys who you probably would pick from (that would be available) to be the HC / person grooming a young QB.

QUOTE (SexiAlexei @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 02:00 PM) Why would anyone be interested in hiring McDaniels? With the way he failed in Denver, I wouldn't think anyone would touch him again. He failed as a 33 year old head coach and even then he did have a .500 season followed by a bad year with Tebow/Orton at QB (and the .500 year was with Orton IIRC). I think he was one of those people who if he looks back, probably learned a lot from that experience and should be in a great position to be a really good head coach. And while he handled the Cutler thing wrong...was he really wrong on Cutler?