Chisoxfn

QUOTE (juddling @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 08:36 AM) the Series was very well done. it was nice to see a show go at such breakneck speed. I have heard conflicting reports as to a season 2. Fox should just let it go. It was good. now move on Yeah, I don't know if Fox thought it was going to be as good as it was (or at least it didn't seem like they did). Maybe it was more that they had delays in releasing it? But I guess they had clauses to protect them in case their was a season 2, but those clauses had expired. Supposedly Fox now is thinking about bringing it back. I didn't know what to expect (and I don't like M Night or haven't since Signs which has to be like 15 movies ago). That said, this was a really well done show. Ending could have been a little better but other then questioning the last 5 minutes, lots of action, etc, good twists. Maybe Night should do some more tv (vs. movies). Then again, he'll probably overthink it and ruin that too.

Not being as helpful in an investigation for deflating footballs...4 games.

QUOTE (juddling @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 07:53 AM) not sure what I expected for an ending but the ending they went with was pretty meh...... I did actually enjoy the series though. The last few minutes could have been better but I suppose they did that ending so they can have a sequel (since a lot of the adult characters aren't under contract and I presume they could find a new cast of younger characters to try and do a season 2).

QUOTE (juddling @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 05:13 AM) Riding in the car with my two girls down 355, we passed a hearse.... Youngest: "Look dad....a limo" Me: "No, that's a hearse not a limo" Youngest: " Hearse, Limo what's the difference" Oldest: "the person in the back" I almost had to pull over from laughing so hard. At my inlaws for dinner my Father in law old wooden chair broke sending him to the floor hard. My MIL looked over from the kitchen and asked "What happened?" my youngest (11 at the time) said "Gravity happened" and milk came out my nose......... Haha. You know for years as a kid, I actually thought Frank Thomas nickname was the Big Hearst (vs. big hurt). I thought it was because he "killed" the ball. When I found out it was the big hurt, I was disappointed because I always thought my nickname was more badass.

QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 07:16 AM) I don't see the Dodgers wanting Avi or Montas, that just feels like filler on the Sox end to make up some value. The Sale for Puig/Pederson, Urias and Seager deal (give or take a Barnes or Olivia here or there) is still the most intriguing (though unrealistic) one, IMO. What about Quintana? Think the Dodgers would do Quintana plus for Puig/Pederson and Seager in any way, shape or form? I doubt it. I think if we dealt Q and Shark (they actually need 2 starters according to most reports) for Puig / Seager / Barnes, that would probably be the only package where you could get Puig & Seager without giving up Sale. And even then I don't know.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 07:28 AM) I really get the feeling the teams #1 target is not a catcher, it is a 3b. I don't think they would pass up a deal with a good catching prospect in it, I just really think they will be looking more at the hot corner. I think shortstop might be in the mix as well as outfielder and starting pitching. Bottom line, this org is never shy about acquiring pitching so if they get the right pitching prospect, I am sure they'd be more then willing to take it. I still think to really get back to 2016, one of Q / Sale needs to go (counter-intuitive, sure, but bottom line, we need some stellar young position talent and those are the guys that can get you multiple impact pieces). You then have more risk on the rotation, however, we have a few more chips their and a much better track record of success.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jul 23, 2015 -> 05:31 PM) I'll be enraged if the Sox don't trade one of Putnam or Petricka. With the deadline fast approaching and Jones coming back soon, there is no better time to be selling a reliever. If they don't get the right offer, I see no reason to move either of them. It isn't like they will be expensive next year and are still valuable assets. I also am not making moves because Jones is coming back. He's missed a lot of baseball. I do agree that it makes sense to move our relievers but if someone offers us a heap of junk for them, I'll pass.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Jul 23, 2015 -> 04:07 PM) I disagree with that. Was there ever a report saying the Sox declined Iglesias? Because the Tigers desperately needed a SS because Peralta was suspended for PEDs. At the time, Garcia looked like a power hitting OFer with a gun for an arm, and Iglesias was an all glove, no bat kind of player. Lets just think about this. The Tigers traded Avi for Iglesias. The Red Sox did not get anyone from the Tigers. The Red Sox wanted Peavy. So bottom line, yes, the White Sox could have had Jose but they preferred Avi and that is why they were able to get a 3rd team involved to get the headliner that they wanted.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 23, 2015 -> 02:20 PM) Well that would likely remove any need they'd have of Alexei. Aren't they really toast at SS?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 23, 2015 -> 01:41 PM) If you trade Quintana, yes, then you have to find another pitcher. In that case I'd take Shields contract on, presuming that we got back a couple big league starters for Q that are also fairly cheap. I could live with that assuming the Q return was worth it. My thoughts are you flip Q to the Dodgers (Puig / Seager...no idea if they do it but if I can get those two, I think I live with it..if I can give up a prospect on our side to get Barnes, then all the better), Shark to the Blue Jays (if we are really lucky we get Hoffman). We still give Avi some more time, knowing we have a DH spot now open (since we traded LaRoche and Danks for Shields...this is if the Pads really are looking at just saving payroll and if the reports are true that no one would take Shields otherwise). That isn't a bad move and you've added a few more attractive pieces.

I would love Hoffman for Shark. Then I'd turn around and deal Q for position talent, including Puig. Dodgers have plenty of position talent that is a match and could help retool the team (yes we take a hit in the rotation) but the front office has to be true and fair to themselves and realize we don't have other components without trading one of our guys that we can get multiple chips for (and Sale / Q are basically the only other guys, with the potential exception of Abreu, who I suppose you could move, although I hand't thought about it and given we already don't have position players don't know that it really makes sense).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 23, 2015 -> 01:32 PM) Honestly, yes, I think we'd still 100% be that deep in pitching. We're not low on pitching until we trade Quintana or Sale. I've said before and will say again, unless EJ implodes again, I'm 100% ok with a Sale, Q, Rodon, Johnson, Danks rotation to start next year with Danks departing after a month or two for replacement by Fulmer. Puts Fulmer on the same path as Rodon (even gets him more minor league time since he signed so much sooner), gets Johnson and Fulmer nearly full big league seasons so we're not counting on them as rookies in 2017, and even leaves us with an obvious top 6, with Montas and Danish appearing in the rearview as guys who could also come up late in 2016 or in 2017 depending on how they lok. You clear out Danks...we still have a nice slot for Fulmer next year. You get those back 3 some legit experience in the bigs in 2016 and you've got a rotation that could be really, really good and really really cheap in 2017 and still leave us with pitchers at AAA who can step in, take bullpen roles, or even serve as the main chip in a trade for a major player. I kinda get the Buehrle thing, I really do. I just want the open space for those rookies. And I was suggesting trading Quintana and Shark (plus we'd be trading Danks) so we'd be trading 3/5th's of our current rotation, so I don't see how adding Shields (or Buehrle for that matter) is a bad thing (in fact, under my hypothetical I really can't see any scenario where you wouldn't want to add some pitching). You then have Fullmer / Montas / Erik Johnson who can get opportunities (plus I'd hope we got at least one high powered arm back from the Q / Shark deals with the rest of the focus on position prospects) for 2 spots (plus we still have no idea whether Rodon will be good or not).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 23, 2015 -> 01:11 PM) I don't think the White Sox should be spending money on pitching in the least. Moving Danks and LaRoche would help, but that's still the Sox spending a huge amount of money at the position where they're by far the deepest and strongest. Remember, you'd then be flipping Q and Shark (so would we really be that deep in pitching). I actually recently advocated for moving Shark / Q and then signing Buehrle (you can go more short-term and he brings a certain presence to him that I think would be valued). That said, I'm a loyalist to Buehrle. His arm could fall off but I almost think he's the type that would take a 1 yr deal each year and you could make the decision each year (just as he could make his same decision as to whether he wanted to play).

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jul 23, 2015 -> 11:42 AM) My contacts are condemning behaviors of the FO. This is not a race to trade your asset. Yes, the market is shrinking and yes there are more pitchers available but that doesn't mean you undersell your only good asset on the market. I was saying we should have traded Samardzija earlier regardless of the team's hot streak. I am on record saying so. That doesn't mean that because the supposed top contender for Samardzija paired up with the strangest FO in baseball to trade for a different pitcher means the FO struck out on July 23rd. There are plenty of teams in the market for SP. I do think they should act quickly and move him soon but no trade between the two strangest front offices in baseball will get me to a conclusion that the Sox' FO totally f***ed up the trade deadline here on July 23rd. I have patience and understanding of the process so I won't make rash decisions based on one singular related transaction. I agree with this post and I also say Crasnick's tweet could be a mirade of things and it could have even been the Sox working on keeping any leverage they have (I don't really think they have a lot, in the case of Shark) but they'll do what they can to spin things. I still think we should aggressively look at moving Q and Shark. Would anyone be interested in Shields (if say the Pads would do Danks for Shields and cash (or maybe Danks and LaRoche).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 23, 2015 -> 10:12 AM) I generally agreed with you until the last line. Avi's been so bad this year that "The White Sox would be better with De Aza right now" is unarguably true. Long term would they be better with him? Well, Avi's been so bad that if the White Sox want to really field a competitive roster next year he needs replaced. If they're ok rebuilding, he can have another year or two to see if he can turn into something useful. He might well just be a guy we waste 4 years on without ever getting anything positive. Depends on your view. If you think purely this year and ignore salary, then I agree, De Aza has been better. That said, he was a dumpster fire in Baltimore to start the season and long-term I don't know if the answer holds true or not. Thinking down the line, as down as I am on Avi, I still think he has more upside and promise and thus I think given where we stand today as a team (e.g., out of the race and looking towards next year), i'd rather have Avi on my roster (and the extra cash) then De Aza. All this said, I always liked and appreciate De Aza. He was a far better player then Sox fans gave him credit for.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 23, 2015 -> 10:27 AM) I'll add this to my mental list of systematic problems with this front office. You and I agree. Question is who could have been so foolish to buy into this thing at that point. It seems like this club has a history of overplaying their cards and falling too "in love" with their paper rosters. To your point, something you talk about pretty consistently (and I agree with), the Sox have historically (really since KW took over) underachieved (actual production vs. paper expectations). Some of that could be luck but at some point, it begs the question of why are we consistently wrong (it has happened under 2 different managers).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 23, 2015 -> 10:24 AM) But you saw the winning streak, this team coulda been a contender! Even when we were winning, I still said the defense and offense sucked too much and it was time to put the focus to next year (while still potentially buying). If things worked out and you end up winning, great, but I'm not not making moves when your playoff odds are below 5% and your team has sucked defensively for 2 full seasons (and now most of a 3rd season).

It really irks me that the Sox took so long and the market has now turned far more neutral.

All I know is we played uninspired the whole tourney. Played like complete ass.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 22, 2015 -> 02:02 PM) None of the kids cared that parents were not at the games. On the South Side of Chicago in Mt. Greenwood, most of the parents at the time worked hard and partied hard. They either didn't come home until very late at night after work drunk, as drinking and driving wasn't as big a deal back in the day (the cops on the south side tended to make sure you got home but rarely arrested you), or they would be too tired to go to one of their kids' little league games or youth basketball games. They liked to stay home and sit in the yard and slug beers or watch the Sox on TV. Parents wouldn't even dream of talking to their kids' Little League coaches. Like I said, my dad was shocked at the quality of play (outstanding play) when he finally went to one of our playoff games. I know parents of kids on our LL team were happy the fields at 115th Street were not that far away and all the kids rode their bikes to the games. Then they wouldn't have to drive the kids to the games. The weird thing is the kids who played Little League on my team are one of the first generations to monitor every moment of their kids' lives after their lives were so carefree and un-monitored. Weird. So Greg, what you described, is not a way I could personally parent / raise my kids. I didn't have kids so I could ignore them and not be their and help raise them. I'm not going to be their to hand everything to them, but I do want to be their for their sports moments, etc. And when I had kids, I understood it came with responsibilities and that meant that often times my priorities would take a back seat (and I don't view it as a bad thing...you just have fun doing different things). Before my kids, I wouldn't have wanted to go to the park, but now taking my daughter to the park and pushing her on the swings is something her and I enjoy.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 22, 2015 -> 03:56 PM) I believe one of the same people who had Micah leapfrog AAA this year also went on record saying that the gulf between AAA and the bigs has never been bigger. With the pitching in the bigs right now, I have to agree with that too. Makes me really want them to let these guys work at AAA. With the gulf that big, doesn't it really mean that the gulf between AA and AAA is probably smaller then ever, so you might as well get them to the bigs and just understand you need to have guys develop at the major league level? And just know that you need to be patient. If you saw combination of production and tools you liked in the minors, it means you need to give a guy a chance. If you saw anything less then that, then sure, be less patient.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jul 22, 2015 -> 10:49 AM) Same with me. My parents were at pretty much every single sporting event I ever played in and for the most part, my friends/teammates had their parents there watching them as well. My parents were far from helicopter parents. I was allowed to walk the 6 or 7 blocks to school by the time I was in 3rd or 4th grade, I was allowed to ride my bike around my neighborhood and I was allowed to play outside until it got dark but they very rarely missed any of my games. Based on stories I've read and movies/TV shows I've seen, the generation before mine didn't have a lot of parent involvement in sports. I'm thinking maybe back in the 60's or 70's. Not so much in the 80's and 90's. Yep. I was the same way. Other then sports, my friends and I had bikes and we'd go all over the place without our parents. Basically from daylight to sunset we were on the roam and then usually back in the neighborhood around nightfall, but even then, more often then not (at least in the summer) outside shooting hoops or just running around.

My daughter is doing that too Jeff. We read a book where the response to everything is a kid saying "no" and then eventually the kid learns to change how it is asked to care more about the other person. For about a week, no matter what I asked my daughter, she thought she was playing along with the book and would say..No, No, No. Do you want ice cream? No Do you want to go to the park? No Do you want a graham cracker? No Do you want a vitamin (basically a gummy bear)? No I would find it all comical cause the above 3 things are basically her favorite 3 things in the world. With the 1st the one she almost never gets and the other three things that we do with her every day. I don't think I ever thought I'd turn into as patient of a parent as I am (given how impatient I am in general). Hopefully I stay that way.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 22, 2015 -> 01:59 PM) If the Dodgers were willing to do Shark+ for Puig, what would you guys offer? I would trade Shark, Montas and Avisail for Puig. I don't think they want Avi but I'd do it. I don't really care, get me Puig.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 22, 2015 -> 02:35 PM) TBH, I think there is some changes happening. That Futuresox article with the pitching coach at Kanny talked about how they think prospects need to stay in their level to learn how to adjust. Seems like everyone in lower levels is on that page. I'm wondering if the Courtney Hawkins saga actually caused some changes with promotions, though the radical changes for getting all hitters on the same approach ain't happened. I don't align our methodologies around pitching prospects and positional prospects. We have a track record of being an above average organization at developing pitching and it would appear have a proven and successful strategy and strong communication channels in the organization. Now maybe the same exists on the positional side but the track record (and a sustained one) doesn't line up. We haven't developed jack when it comes to positional prospects.