Chisoxfn

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?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 01:59 PM) Jim Harbaugh isnt going anywhere any time soon. He makes more annually than any NFL coach. He also has no boss. I'd also rather have John as a coach. I think there is a real possibility he ends up with the Rams. That said, I'd be more convinced in a year or two, especially if he wins a National Title at Michigan. At some point, Harbaugh is coming back to the NFL.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 01:38 PM) I dont think Harbaugh would leave the Ravens to come to the Bears though. You'd have to look at someone that wants to move up from a position that isnt a highly paid HC I was referring to the guy up in Michigan. Agree with you on Harbaugh leaving Ravens. I can't be hiring a head coach and not put Harbaugh at the top of my list. Rams are going to throw everything his way. It will be interesting to see if he takes them up on there offer. If he believes in Goff, it is a pretty attractive job (it also is for a McDaniels or Shanny as well) as they will have lots of resources, need help at oline/wideout, but have a quality defense (despite just getting whipped) and will have fantastic resources heading into a new stadium, etc. Key of course is developing Goff.

So I'm pretty much fully on board with the, if it isn't Fox, hire a guy that we think is an offensive genius and let him pick our next QB (McDaniels / Shanny are at the very top of my list). Obviously, my first go round would be to hand the keys to the kingdom to Harbaugh (whom I love...but I know that isn't happening and as I've said multiple times, I haven't seen any reason to kick Pace to the curb yet).

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 10:16 AM) Whatever happened to the black dude on the bridge? He never died on screen. Could it be him? I've debated him, one of the new communities that is to come, as well as it being the guy....don't think it is one of the girls, although it very well could be. Just didn't look like a girls boot. Part of me assumes it is Dwight and he is going to turn again Negan. I really do think that mid-season finale brought the whole first half of the story together. In isolation, Negan was so unlikeable, etc, and it was just so dark...but you kind of had to bring all the characters to the low to get to the point we are now...if you did anything else, it would have been so darn anticlimatic. They even found a way to get everyone to dislike Negan a little less in that final episode. Part of I think the problem with TWD is, when you watch it week to week vs. stream a whole season, it comes off different. Week to week, I think there are more of the "pacing" concerns vs. a show that people could stream 3 episodes at once. It is one of the beauties of the netflix/amazon's of the world with their shows, where you can just totally flow through a season and see it all for what it was meant to be (that said...maybe sometimes the longer pauses are beneficial because it adds to the drama, etc).

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 01:08 PM) Kevin Millar is pretty much the resident goofball at MLBN but when he wants to get serious, he is interesting. He was talking about his free agency, first when he signed with Boston, and then when he signed with Baltimore. He said everything was OK when he hadn't signed by the holidays, but once the new year started panic starts setting in. He wound up signing in February, and was pretty nervous he wasn't going to have a home. I think when he signed with Boston he actually was close to going to Japan. Good info and I can see why....typically we don't see a lot of moves made as you get later in the year. Teams use resources, etc. The fact that so little has happened so far is just so stinking odd. Do we see ML teams panic that they haven't addressed needs and thus up their offer to acceptable levels for Q? FA wise, I would think a lot of players would be nervous as they just in general would like to have an idea of where they are, what is going to happen. Such a weird weird year. We do know that the market for Robertson is pretty much established at this point (no other options via FA and DRob is probably the most proven guy on the block). Frazier's market is likely set as well (with Turner now off the market). And with Q, it is more the matter of what team ultimately decides / views him as an ace / co-ace. If teams don't view him as that, I don't know that we ultimately get the price we want.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 11:22 AM) I'm not saying it's an incorrect assessment, I'm saying it's verbally jacking off. None of us know what Dak would look like with the Bears either. While I'm completely unimpressed with our offense, there are plenty of things to look at and kind of go, when you look at what we have on paper, there are reasons to be encouraged with Loggains. Whether it is the development of Howard or just the fact that we haven't been embarassed despite all the changes at the QB position and wideout (by and large I refer to this). Yes, our offense has not been very good from a PPG perspective, etc, but I think if we told people about all the various injuries and who we would have starting at QB / Wideout / etc, we'd be thinking our offense would be even worse. What sucks the most is, it almost becomes a wasted year in the sense of evaluating Loggains and his long-term success profile because you don't know how to adequately baseline him. At least from an outside view it is hard.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 01:03 PM) I have read with texting and email and cellphones, the Winter Meetings are more show that substance as far as trade talk. It is needed for the job fair, and other thinks, but modern technology has made them obsolete for trades and signings, although it seems some things actually happen there. If Hahn didn't trade Sale and Eaton, this years Meetings would have been a bore for everyone. The whole offseason has been a bore. Usually the winter meetings are a time when you cement a lot of trade talks (plus hit a lot of items as it relates to free agent moves / meetings with agents. Everything centralized leads to just more robust talking, but agree, there are all the other things happening too. Owners meetings a few weeks prior are a precursor to a lot of things. Everything this year has been different due to the CBA overhang and the historically bad free agent class. That said, as I just said in another thread, my prediction is we'll see the pace pick up leading into next week, with the holidays serving as a bit of an artificial deadline.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 01:00 PM) It was last friday, just after the meetings. The worst part about the Winter Meetings ending every year is there are no more deadlines. Remember that the Cespedes saga lasted for WEEKS, and Alex Gordon hadn't signed for another 3 weeks from now. Pretty stale. That said, everything got a later start. I think you do have some more deadlines as we approach the holidays though, as front offices tend to do a bit of a slow down for family type matters which again, creates some urgency / artificial deadlines to wrap things up. The pace of moves have been about the slowest I can ever remember and post winter meetings, it isn't unusual for a bit of a slowdown as teams regroup, but when I factor in the overall context of so few moves (and the poor FA class), it is interesting that we haven't seen a bit more pace this week. I do expect next week to be a very busy week.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 13, 2016 -> 12:12 PM) While too soon to give up on him being a starter, I see Carson Fulmer having the potential to be a very good reliever in time. If he can just focus for an inning or two and harness his raw stuff he could be an overpowering setup man or closer If he comes out next year throwing like he did late in the season, I'm going to severely hinder his chances of much anything. He can not excel pitching the way he did, with the overall lack of velocity / stuff, late in the season. I hope for him, it was more of a fatigue aspect and/or mechanical issue that is worked out and we see his velocity and stuff back. The performance I saw wasn't one that was a lack of performance because they were raw, it was a guy that looked meh.