Chisoxfn

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2015 -> 12:46 PM) Kang got 4 years and $11 million (which is seen as a HUGE bargain) and didn't put up the power numbers that this guy has. I would go out on a limb and bet on an Abreu sized deal in terms of max dollars. Kang had far more position flexibility. Real question is what are his tools. Their is no way a korean 1B is getting a deal anywhere near Abreu's. And Kang's deal is only viewed as a bargain now...it was fair market at the time of the deal.

Given his position and relative age (still young...but not for long), I'll doubt he gets much of a contract (which limits the downside). I wouldn't mind giving a shot at him and see if he can hit. If he can, you have Abreu and him at 1B / DH. This is all presuming the price is right.

QUOTE (knightni @ Oct 28, 2015 -> 12:24 PM) He only played most of those guys because injuries forced him to. Asik and Taj were coming together at the same time. I don't recall injuries forcing him to give them minutes. Niko was part of the rotation from the start of the season. When he won rookie of the month, he had an even greater role due to injuries, but he still got minutes. Butler might have gotten some additional minutes due to injuries, but he came through as well. I'm just saying, Bulls have a great track record of drafting under Paxson and Gar and Thibs also should get credit for the record of developing. Their were misses but given where they were picking, what they've done is pretty impressive, imo. With exception of Pax dealing Aldridge.

QUOTE (ron883 @ Oct 28, 2015 -> 10:15 AM) If you equate marijuana to booze and strip clubs, you need a reality check my friend. I'm sure a number of them are related to medical marijuana, too. I'm saying I wouldn't want a bunch of them in my neighborhood. I'm not equating any of them, just saying I wouldn't want my neighborhood to have 100 bars, or a bunch of marijuana shops or a bunch of strip clubs. And I am not anti-booze, by the way. And yes, I would vote against legalizing the drug because the taxes just ensure the black market will continue to exist and to me that is the only worthwhile reason to legalize marijuana in my eyes.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Oct 28, 2015 -> 10:49 AM) The problem is Thibs got forced into playing those players a lot. The Bench Mobs were fantastic. But we all know that Thibs buried young players unless there was an injury. Then they got buried again immediately, even if they played well. Thibs was an amazing coach, but his biggest weaknesses were a terrible offensive scheme (and reluctance to hire an offensive assistant) and his rigid rotations. I never bought the Thibs burries his rookie / young players argument. He got a ton out of Asik, Butler, Taj, and Niko. Yes, he didn't play Doug much last year, but Doug was hurt for a good chunk of the year and it was tough getting him involved. I'm sure this year he'd have gotten more minutes anyway. I do agree that it is nice to have a coach who would appear to have a better approach towards the long-term outlook in terms of minutes.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 28, 2015 -> 09:50 AM) I live in Denver (and, as a disclaimer, spend my time at microbreweries, not dispensaries). Yeah, the 16th Street Mall in downtown has vagrants, but it's always had vagrants. And the commercial real estate market in Denver is absolutely being driven by the marijuana industry (per a recent report, 1 in 11 commercial buildings in Denver are used for marijuana). The bankers have issues with it because banks have to deal with the conflict between federal and state law (lending where the collateral is being used in contravention of federal law - there are actually a lot of interesting legal cases dealing with the conflict between state and federal law). It's a positive from a state revenue standpoint. It's a positive for jobs and the real estate market. Changing the law now would shutter lots businesses, leave tons of commercial properties empty, shut down a reliable source of state revenue - revenue that funds education keeping that burden away from property taxes - and would have a horrible economic impact on the state... Yeah...I was aware of the banking issue and I would presume you'll have some state savings & loans pop up, but problem is you are out of luck having any form of FDIC protection, I believe. Not an expert but interesting and I presume someone is going to jump in and tackle the banking issue. The fact that 1 in 11 commercial buildings rae being used for marijuana is yet another reason I wouldn't vote. I wouldn't want 1 in 11 commercial buildings being used for booze or strip clubs either.

I remember interviewing for jobs that year (last year in college) and I was sporting this grizzly playoff beard during the interviews (couldn't shave it for fear of ruining the Sox mojo). Probably helped that I interned so I knew I at least had one full time offer prior to finalizing the process with the "beard", haha. Went well with, tell me about this website on your resume and I was able to tie in the beard during the interview, haha, so they realized I'm not a bum college kid...just superstitious.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 28, 2015 -> 08:48 AM) Not that Christie has much of a chance at the nomination, but his position on marijuana (feds start enforcing federal law) would almost certainly swing Colorado to the Democrat nominee... I was just in Denver and the people I was talking to their absolutely deplore the law. Then again it was a conference for bankers and finance people so might have just been you had a > percentage of conservatives their given the nature of the profession. That said, the bulk of these people indicated they had originally voted for the law. I had been in downtown denver numerous times and their were a lot more vagrants and homeless this time (going purely off of my eye test).

It was 1 game and we didn't exactly look amazing.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Oct 28, 2015 -> 06:35 AM) Yikes. I found the piece on Upshaw's widow very interesting. I commend her and I spit on her family. Never heard of that restaurant but I'll make sure to never eat at it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/st...511445869184742

I'd have been scared too, but I wonder why Bears didn't cut him this off-season (given what they did with Marshall, etc). I would have had to presume they were aware of the incident? Glad when it happened under the current regime watch, they handled it the right way.

Wohoo...set the tone vs. Cleveland....this years different boys!!!! Rusty game from our best players but Rose's aggressiveness was nice to see. With us playing so many games early in the season, I expect we'll see Noah get the day off and we'll get Portis some more minutes. I also presume we'll see kirk out their as well as they'll give Rose a bit of a rest given the upcoming schedule. Hoiberg is like no coach (other then Kerr) that I think I've ever seen interviewed on the sideline. I always feel like Kerr is more interested in the interview then the game and it almost seemed Hoiberg was as well (no knock cause Kerr through one year looked legit at least).

QUOTE (Joshua Strong @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 01:05 PM) Sorry, I didn't see you in my house when we had our discussion. How did it go exactly. Doing it on an off day is disgraceful and distasteful. I've seen enough from your posts to see how you approached it and how you got kicks out of it. Pathetic. If you had any class, no matter how busy you were, you'd say at the end of the day (better yet at the beginning), we need to talk (and by the way...he shouldn't be surprised to have this conversation either as you should have already given him the feedback that he needs to step up / improve in X / Y / Z).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 12:31 PM) Not at all. Like I said, how many guys are going to tell teams NOT to draft them, because they think they have a shot (at whatever confidence level) at a team being willing to pay them another $20k year, AND be a player that the White Sox couldn't/wouldn't have drafted before that point. Both of those things have to be true for players to fit into being a benefit from this new pay scale. Then the players that fall into those slots have to be better than the $3 million-ish a year that the team would be paying for this new scale. I think we just differ on what the benefit would be for the franchise who did this. I see the upside as very minimal, and probably a money loser in the long run. The most talented players aren't going to be swayed by this. The players that would are going to be minimally talented and/or ceiling limited. Given that the conversations happen prior to the draft, a player could have had discussions with 5 teams and based upon that with the right guaranteed he could know that team X which offers more will pick him and sign him (if he agrees on X). Most everything with those 3rd day picks are done before the draft starts.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 12:09 PM) I did say earlier that I get the changes for things like food and facilities. Those would/could actually make a difference. What competition is there in the draft? How many players would tell a team NOT to draft them, just because they wanted to get the Sox to draft them for an extra $20k a year? Very, very few guys are going to refuse to sign here, but would because they get an extra $20k a year. Even fewer of them are actually ever going to be good enough to justify the franchise paying out an extra few million dollars a year to find that one player who eventually makes it as something better than a replacement player. As to the first part, this ONLY helps the organization IF they are getting players signed that the COULD NOT sign before. Otherwise, they didn't need to pay them the extra money in the first place. If they would have signed with whoever drafted them because they have no leverage, we aren't improving our farms system anyway. That is entirely my point. I think you are looking at the entire pool of players are a potential benefit, but if we could have signed them anyway, that isn't a benefit. That is wasting money. It actually happens quite often where a prospect will tell a team he is not interested, only to get drafted by another org whom he'd prefer to be with (whether via existing relationship with the scouts / org). FutureSox had an article up from someone who said they told one org they weren't interested and then signed with us later. It absolutely happens under this new environment and probably quite a lot and that extra $20K per year is relatively material when you are talking someone getting that up front bonus of $100K or just north of $100K. Basically it ensures you get a higher quality draft pick from round 10 through because over the course of 3 years, you essentially have given them an undiscounted additional 60% vs. what another team could offer (and I think 3 years is a relatively safe number to presume a minor leaguer would at least still be in the minors).

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 10:44 AM) I'm not talking the foreign guys. A college scholarship is in most cases worth a lot more than $50k these days. In many cases, its worth 4 to 5 times that. If I was a broke dad and had a kid who was offered $50k or free college, he isn't signing for $50k. If he is good enough to make it, he can get drafted again in 3 or 4 years. I agree with you. My perception changes when they get life altering money, but for me, if it were my kids, my recommendation would be, unless you are a top few round draft pick, go to college, get your free education and then see where you get drafted.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 11:17 AM) I think the guy put polyurethane or something on all the trim. It's glossy. When I painted some trim in our office in the basement it took like 4 coats of paint to cover. So I either sand the entire house or I spend just an ungodly amount of time painting. Either way, i'm perfectly ok with not having white trim everywhere, which will probably be a fad for another 10 years and then everyone will want dark trim again. Wouldn't another option be to buy some new trim and paint that (while pulling off the old trim)? Depending on how old it is, could make sense and presume it wouldn't be super costly.

Booyah....season starts today.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 07:28 AM) That is a whole lot money for an extreme niche market, and a pretty small pool at that. Guys who are getting small bonuses are getting them for a reason. Teams already spend it going over the international pool allotment and this would be away to give you a little more excess without circumnavigating the rules.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 05:21 PM) It is total speculation, but Alomar would be a fool if he didn't ask. If he is leaving for a side ways move, at the very least he should be looking at his career past that for the opportunity for the top Sox job. I'd also expect him to take the interest from the White Sox back to the Indians and look for the same promise for the job if the current manager leaves. I think he'd be the opposite, I think he'd be a fool to ask. I could see if you were going somewhere where you had a proven manager getting close to retirement but asking to be the replacement and get a guarantee at it would be awful. Now he absolutely should ask management where they stand with Robin (because that is a relevant question) and he could even answer a question and state his future goals are to become a major league manager, but if Kenny were to hire someone because the intention is to replace Robin with that guy...well then Robin should already be gone and who you are bringing in has a ton of incentives not to help Robin (since he has more upside in Robin failing then helping). It would be a catastrophic failure in my mind. And I think it would be a loser move by the organization anyway. I don't want to tie my word into a promise for someone else a few years from now when I have no idea what managers would be out their (and whether I'd even want someone like Alomar at that point). Please note that my opinion would differ if this weren't the CEO job. And what does that say for your support of Robin if you did do this (and I'm not getting into a debate of whether you should or shouldn't)..but if you already think that low of Robin then he shouldn't be the manager to begin with.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 04:53 PM) I bet that Alomar asked for a promise that he was next in line for the job, and the Sox didn't give it, which is why he is back in Cleveland. Rightfully so, I wouldn't make that guarantee to anyone. It isn't right to do...not for Ventura or the organization. When that time comes, you should evaluate whose right for your job then and you never want someone who is working for someone else with the express remind of replacing that person (because they were fired). It creates enhanced incentive to undermind said individual and create a negative / improper work environment. I would think pretty poorly of Alomar if he even asked for such a guarantee. That said, everyone here is speculating so none of us know.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 04:51 PM) Taking the other side of the argument, why would teams really want to push through the financial part of the changes? In baseball, once you draft a guy, you pretty effectively own him for a long period of time. There isn't a big recruiting process where you need to differentiate yourself to stand out and attract talent. The players aren't free agents (unless they are undrafted, but that isn't exactly a booming market) I can get improving things related to performance, such as food and facilities, but as to pay, I see no good reason for it to change without a broader push from MLB to do so. As an organization, you'd be adding a big cost to your bottom line with literally no change in productivity or play. The one reason I could see changing the actual pay is your ability to sign more of those $100K flyer guys who wouldn't normally sign. Why can you sign more of them then the other team, because over a 3 year run in the minors, you are effectively doubling what they get paid (by paying more). Now to the player, is that enough to get you to forgo college (or an international guy to pick you vs. another team offering a similar amount) and sign with X team...I don't know (not involved in the negotiations to understand how much that amount could change). The downside is you would have to pay everyone else the same, so to give that extra little bit to a few select guys, you are essentially going to have to pay that additional cash to everyone else (but that is the cost to get that competitive advantage so you'd have to evaluate if it is worth it from a marketing ploy). If they aren't going to get a competitive advantage, then I really don't see why any owner would do it as it would just piss off the rest of the bunch. Note: This is also assuming you can actually change what you pay minor league players, which none of us actually know. The second scenario, which involves investing in facilities so your player is well rested (and to be frank, better monitored) and well fed, well that just seems like a no-brainer to me. I would be hard pressed to presume that the cost wouldn't be worth it (and couldn't be done effectively). Just think about the fact that you could have your young prospects watching film, working out, eating right, all in a top notch facility. Not saying all of them take advantage of it, but it would seem that the upside would be their. Given teams spend $300M on payroll, I'd think you'd at least some of these big market teams going down this path (although in reality, it is the small market teams who don't have access to unlimited resources who would best benefit from minor changes like this...problem is, once they work, everyone else will jump in and you lose that competitive advantage, but hey, take whatever advantage you can create while you can.

QUOTE (Joshua Strong @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 03:48 PM) I'm at least competent at what I do and more importantly I'm not an asshole. I don't think that will be happening to me anytime soon. The cinematographer I hired, tired to do my job, treated other crew and the cast like s***. Everytime I dressed/composed the scene he would always try to change what I did. Not to mentioned all the film he wasted. I called him and said that he should come in duringn an off day so that we could start putting together an edit. And then fired him. I didn't feel an ounce bad and I told him that he should find a new profession. I could only imagine how I'd react if someone told me to come in on my off day only to can me. Everything you said points to you being an Ahole. Whether the person deserved it or not, they are a person. Firing someone, while the person might have made the actual decision easy on you, should be handled with class (or as much class as possible given the circumstances) and you clearly didn't do that.

It isn't supply and demand. It isn't about another 10,000 people who would want to be baseball players, it is the fact that their are almost none, so you should do everything possible to maximize the odds of the limited supply of players you have. Baseball isn't interested in expanding its minors and adding another 10,000 people, because so few can actually play the game and they want to focus on the group who might have a shot and should maximize those odds. So...african american's used to be slaves. I don't care what other leagues did and just like slavery, the fact that other people did it, didn't make it right. And if I bought a ticket and someone said their was a cost-effective way to improve those odds...I'd be all over it. And I don't care about subsidizing golf and tennis players because their are their own organizations. Plain and simple...they are their own franchise. They aren't working for another franchise like a MLB player. Golf / Tennis players have nothing to do with this debate. Could be true...I don't know, but I can think of all the big time college programs and I can't think of many who haven't invested in state of the art athletic facilities (not just because it is a good recruiting tool but to help maximize what you get out of the athletes). Now you are getting into foriegn policy and either way that is absurd...this are billionaires running professional businesses who are highly profitable...assistance does not need to be paid by the government...hell no. No one is asking for the government to do anything. Baseball teams should be doing what they can to maximize potential market inefficiencies. What the hell does the college arena have to do with anything? Them being non revenue has no implications on what is going on at the minor league level. I'm not going to touch on a lot of this...but MLB, up until 2007 or so, was actually a not for profit. Should McDonalds just not pay minimum wage because it would maximize their profits?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 02:21 PM) First, I'm not at all convinced that's true. Second, even if the chances of that are 10%, and the chances of others being hurt is only say 5%, that's is far too much risk IMO. Especially when you consider that it isn't just a shooter missing that is the bad outcome - it could cause the shooter to act hastily and actually kill more people. And the biggest danger is people who just do stupid stuff, like that lady who shot at a car running away from a shoplifting at a Walmart or something the other day. You are working from the assumption that people will only shoot when justified. Even if you think the risk in that scenario is acceptable, you are ignoring the many times people will shoot when they shouldn't, and when the target would not have hurt or killed anyone. The problem is their are a lot less crazy people then their are gun owners, so if you played the probabilities, it takes far fewer mistakes from gun owners then it does actual crazy people (just given sheer sizes). by the way I am neither pro / anti guns. I personally don't own any and see no need to own them. If I were left to protect myself, I'd be more likely to shoot a friend / family member / neighbor around my house then an actual criminal. I can think of the times I thought someone was coming into my house when it was actually for a justifiable reason and well, if I had a gun, who knows what I or my wife would have done. I can also think of the times I snuck into my parents house at night because I locked my keys out and had a spare set, etc (or needed something but didn't want to wake them...after I had moved out). Had they had guns, I could have gotten shot. Plus while the old adage is, bad people will always get guns, I don't know if the crazies would always get guns. Yes, I think the criminals would get guns no matter what (but largely the criminals are combated by the police), but a whack job nut might not be as likely to get him (and those are the ones going into a situation ready to die...so police effectiveness is different vs. a typical criminal who is planning on making a successful exit) as he doesn't have the usual avenues open to him then a typical criminal. Could he get them, sure, but the crazy is probably just as likely to get himself in troubling trying to get the contraband. I believe in the right to bear arms really for the sole purpose of A) you hunt or B) you want to keep firearms to protect from a government uprising (and again...this is tough cause in this day and age an individual would have no chance against the power of our military).