Chisoxfn

QUOTE (flavum @ Jul 9, 2015 -> 02:09 PM) I'd love Todd Frazier on this club. If the Sox somehow got back to .500 by July 30, I'd trade Rodon to get him. 30 year old 3rd basemen (or would be, beginning next year) who is eligible for free agency in 2018 and would get a pretty big raise in 2017. I'm not trading Rodon, who is cost controlled for much longer for him. I'd trade for Frazier and think he would be a good get, but Rodon is one of the top young pitchers in the game. I'd give him up for one of the top young position talents in the game but not Frazier.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 9, 2015 -> 12:46 PM) The option is always the last year though, not the first. If he wants that guarantee of a check if he gets hurt, the franchise wants the guarantee that he's going to be there for a while. My mistake, I thought you could put the option year earlier in the contract. I am wrong though.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jul 9, 2015 -> 12:29 PM) You can only have 1 player option. He wants the max under the new cba. So in that case, I'd do my 5 year with player option and then tear it back up and do it all over again in the following year. You still keep the same leverage while having the long-term guarantee. We all know he's opting out again a year from now.

Lebron or his agent really messed up. Evidently he is signing a 2 year, 1+1 deal. I don't understand why he wouldn't have went back with another max deal with consistent out clauses. At least then in instance he has significant injury, he has protection and get all the money. Right now, if he had a horrific injury, he only has 2 years of guaranteed money. Given all the leverage he has, it just seems ludicrous.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 9, 2015 -> 11:57 AM) Welcome to 4 years ago. The Sox heard the Marlins offer, and told him they couldn't offer him anywhere close to that money. This has been known since it happened. Problem is they never asked him how low he'd go and apparently he would have gone pretty low (albeit it sounds like that was only during the season he would have gone that low...we don't know what he would have done once he hit FA and received that offer from the Marlins).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 9, 2015 -> 12:01 PM) "someone else had to do it years ago that didn't look like them." Highlighting again. Lets cut through all the stuff and just get to the...what do you propose? Should everyone that was born a certain color not accept any job they get or college they got into or move out of their house because of any potential advantage they had in life? And lets go past this, lets take race out of the equation...should everyone be born have to be stripped of any wealth / privileges from their families and be moved to a separate land away from their families so all children can have equal starting points?

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 9, 2015 -> 10:48 AM) so...the bulls did not sign Aaron brooks back at the vet min. We used a portion of our MMLE, so...we can't sign anyone else better than vet min. Because aaron brooks. Can't wait for the "WELL THIS IS SMART BECAUSE THEY DRAFTED JIMMY BUTLER" comments. I don't know. Was Brooks the best person we could sign? I presume we don't actually have bird rights to him so were actually limited on what we could offer him? I do agree that I'd rather give Lin that money then Brooks.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 9, 2015 -> 09:37 AM) Basically at this point it looks like the Bulls are set up to "try last season's roster again". I don't feel that excited about this situation. And It's not the only team in Chicago I'm expecting to say that about this year. They will add another player, just not sure who. I also don't have a problem with it. We were the 2nd best team in the East and only had like 17 regular season games with the starting lineup in tact. And yes, I say we were the 2nd best and that was fairly obvious in the playoffs. I was incredibly pissed we lost to Cleveland and a lot of guys on our side sucked and Cleveland was playing really hurt but we also had our own issues and had guys who were playing hurt too. Both are probably going to be trends (Noah / Taj / Rose are injury prone) and on Cleveland's side you could make the case that Kyrie and Love are as well. Bulls were still a technical foul call from having total control of that series (and/or a Lebron buzzer beater) so while we'd all love to be the heavy favorites, we still are an extremely competitive team who will be top 5 in Vegas odds, I presume. Behind Spurs / Warriors / Cavs. Not sure if there will be anyone else we will be behind (maybe OKC?).

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 9, 2015 -> 08:38 AM) Man, I've never owned a car that long, how do you guys do it? Doesnt the new models/redesigns just make you want to trade it in? I get tempted and I love new cars but I'm patient. We cycle our cars over ~ 10 years span, so new car every 5 years and we pay it off pretty much immediately when we buy it. Love the lack of car payment and for me (as when we don't have the payment we just have a sub account that we invest in some lower risk, decent dividend / return yielding stuff so that when the 5 years comes, we are ready for the next one, I like a quality car but at same time, would rather have my money invested in the markets (and or have a nicer house) then have it sitting in a depreciating asset. Right now my Pilot is now 11 years old with about 160K miles and to be frank, I still like that a lot more then our 2013 Highlander, although the Highlander obviously gets the bulk of our usage. That said, I officially have the itch because the new Pilot is about to come out but I'm hoping our current Pilot holds out another year (at least) so that I can wait until the kinks get worked out of the new model (as well as any premium / inability to haggle) and then replace the current version. But for me, a car should be comfortable, reliable, and get me from point A to point B. I don't get that excited over how fast it goes (rather have a lil better fuel efficiency, especially since we are a SUV family) cause I don't drive crazy (at one point I did but with the family and other things, just doesn't matter). And all the fancy electronics can be just as much a pain in the rear then anything else (although bluetooth was awesome to have integrated when we finally got the Highlander and ditched my wife's old Isuzu Rodeo that somehow actually was a good car...lasted like 12 years with little maintenance). I do look forward to some of the new features when we finally do upgrade. Note: I should point out my wifes commute to / from work is only like 8 miles round trip so it isn't like the 2nd car gets heavy useage, etc anymore. I tend to do the heavier driving (and all weekend driving) so its just another reason I'd have a hard time justifying buying 2 sets of cars new during shorter periods. All that said, I see a lot of reasons to lease if you want the new cars, etc, and I do occasionally think about it because when some of the lease specials are out their (with negative money factors), I do my financial analysis and it gets more to the point where I could justify the extra cost. But for me, I'd rather just stick the money into 529's, my next house downpayment (doesn't contribute a lot, but hey, every penny counts) and ensure 401K max and any other sort of tax deferral I can do.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 9, 2015 -> 08:04 AM) Very upset seeing Lin sign elsewhere on that contract. Yeah, I am more pissed about that then this Jordan stuff, haha.

QUOTE (SleepyWhiteSox @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 11:08 PM) It's all DeAndre though. He cut off contact with the Mavs since Tues. all on his own and contacted Doc/Clips so they could sway him back. So lame. I hope players throughout the league trash talk him so much about how much of a lame he is for this that he shoots under 30% from the line and the clips lose a ton of games almost exclusively by the hack-a-"_" strategy. Wasn't his agent also pretty bad in this deal. Sounds like a lot of stuff said never made it back to DeAndre.

QUOTE (WBWSF @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 04:47 PM) It seems like this subject of White Sox attendance brings out a big response. I've often wondered does anybody who works for the White Sox read any of these comments? I can guarantee it. They are extremely aware of these sites. Does Kenny, probably not, but do people in the marketing department, etc, check in on what fans are saying on Soxtalk (and other sites) most certainly. Will they make changes because of what we said, not when it comes to roster decisions, but absolutely when it comes to product / ball park features, effectiveness of ad campaigns, etc. Not just because 1 person said it, but it is direct feedback that is readily available from a target demographic. That said, they also care about getting the non hard core fans in, but when hard core fans struggle to want to go, how are you going to pull anyone else.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 01:05 PM) It been manufactured by several different companies over that time period so something doesnt match up there. My 2011 and 2014 grand cherokee have been my favorite cars ever and this was the first real issue. You kept your car for 2+ years. If your car is exploding or having major issues during a 2 year window and that is a general trend, it has got to be a pretty big POS (and that is a general trend, you don't expect new cars to die on you in the first few years or really have any issues outside of routine maintenance..not just a rare your car issue). Jeeps though, have lots of eletrical and build quality issues that show up during 4-5 year ownership durations (let alone 10 year duration vs. what you'd see from other car companies). And despite shifts in manufacturers, a lot of tech doesn't necessarily change, it continues to get leveraged / updated. It isn't as if Dodger joined Mercedes and Mercedes, who didn't build trucks and the like, just threw in new chassi's and instantly mercedez them. Yes, changes happened but cars aren't just entirely flipped over or begin from day 1, they get modified for long periods on existing parts, etc, and with exsiting teams. While I bet some of the car flipped during the pre dodge / post dodge era, I bet a lot also stayed the same (not necessarily parts wise but in terms of teams involved in actually building / designing as well as assembly plants, etc...I have no research to back this up just presuming). And I also said, Jeeps are beautiful cars, fantastic 4 wheel, early on generally nice rides, etc. My dad has a 2015 Cherokee and loves it and I'd say it drives amazingly but that doesn't mean it will do so 5 years from now. My uncle is a mechanic and the only jeep he'll swear by are manual jeep wranglers. Those things, electronics be damn, will run forever. Jeep's automatic tranny's have a lot of issues (Engines are pretty good though), but electronics and water pump are major problem areas (and just general build quality such as plastic / other parts breaking / falling off).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 02:33 PM) It is the double standard being used in this thread. One note talks about only the most recent history for the Sox, but then is going back to before a good portion of the Bulls fan base can ever remember to explain them. It is silly. What double standard. We could go back to 1990. Our whole point was the Bulls franchise was changed for the better the day Jordan arrived. The Bulls become a show and a phenomena and backed it up with 6 titles and that gave them staying power through a down era and now they are back (not to the level previously) but have been a consistent playoff team and a perennial title contender (favorite, no, but Vegas has long had them amongst the front runners for the title). There is no comparing the Bulls & Sox from 1990 onward. It is a horrible argument. If you want to go back to the pre-jordan era and when the Bulls largely sucked, sure, but fact is, product took a turn for the better and the Bulls became the face of the NBA internationally and did so far a long time (Jordan was a god before he ever won his 1st title so the stretch really was well sustained).

10 teams since 1990 have had fewer playoff appearances then the Sox (I believe): Nats, Rockies, Marlins, Mariners, Orioles, Royals, Mets, Padres, Blue Jays and Rays. On that list, 3 are expansion teams and the list includes 3 world series winners (Blue Jays (1) & Marlins (2)). I'd also say that one thing almost all of those teams has in common is lousy attendance (w/outlier being Nats (new stadium / relocated franchise), Rockies (solid attendance, beautiful stadium, big city, Mets (new stadium pickup, but prior attendance had its own issues when team stunk at Shea) and Mariners (just a strong fan base in general...nice stadium and they benefited heavily from Ichiro and market (heavy Japanese / Asian population).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 02:29 PM) It is funny that Sox fans will point to only the last 10 seasons to talk about how bad they have had it, but are willing to go back to the 1990's to talk about how good the Bulls have it. 5 postseason appearances and 1 world series ring in 25 years. 20% of the time they made the playoffs. Bulls made playoffs 72% of the time and won 24% of the championships during that era. I think someone else talked about how putrid the Sox run has been over past 40 years even. Its been downright pathetic in terms of making the playoffs and any sort of sustained success. Sox had two / three shots at a run. 93 / 94 and then strike blew it up. Then again in 2000 and we never capped, but made it back in 05 and looked like we could put something together but again, never capitalized.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 02:25 PM) I bet him and Frank are the only players anyone would name. Buehrle might get some love.

QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 02:23 PM) I don't think anybody here is making this point. We're just given the real and logical reasons why people don't go to the Cell, and the factors other stadiums/teams have in their favor. I really don't care about any factor other then performance. Yes, cubs have benefited for whatever reason, but most teams are going to struggle with performance when they haven't had a lot of sustained success and post-season appearances. That is just the reality and more recently we have had some pretty awful teams to watch and as I've alluded to this team this year is probably the worst of the bunch to watch play (even more so then last years team that was horrifically frustrating to watch). When the product on the field stinks and the cost to go to games is their, what incentive does a person have to go pay. You don't get some huge discount on tickets when product sucks. Not much incentive to walk up and in 81 game season and with stadium capacity ~40K, that is a lot of potential seats to fill each and every night. Add in worse defense on the planet, cost, and poor fundamentals and I don't see why you'd watch. Do you pay 10 bucks to see a great movie, sure, lots of people do. Do you pay 10 bucks to see Gigli, hell no (or at least I hope not...that would be a bannable offense). Yes, the 2015 White Sox are the theatric version of Gigle.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 02:12 PM) If only the White Sox had only taken a 20% after their title years. Then even when the team was awful, the attendance started going up again. They gained fans after a .366 and .280 winning percentage. The White Sox lost fans after winning a division title. But, let's hear about all of things that make it different for the White Sox again. Curry and Chandler were exciting times. Many fans thought if that went right, we would have another dynasty on our hands. It was even looking like that potential in 05 when they made the playoffs and Curry made major strides. Then Curry had the heart issue and signed his mega deal to New York. Bulls took short step back and then got Rose and were right back into being extremely competitive. Bulls had only a few teams that were horrifically uninteresting (and those were the very early years post-Jordan where we whiffed on some major free agents). I can't compare the two. If Sox had a NY Yankee like run and then stunk for 5 years, attendance would take a hit, but the attendance wouldn't be where it is today and it wouldn't have peaked where it did in 05/06.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 01:56 PM) I think there's a better chance of Avi turning things around as a hitter, as opposed to defensively. Probably true. Also probably far more likely he ends up like Dayan then anything else. Bright side is he's young and we stink, so we clearly should keep giving him at bats. His value diminishes pretty significantly if he's purely a DH though and give n the negative value of his D, you really have to have a good bat to be a good DH.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 01:58 PM) Even when the Bulls were a perpetual laughing stock, they were amongst the NBA's attendance leaders. Yes, but by that point they were coming off of 6 titles and one of the most dominate runs in sports history. Additionally, they had 13+ years with the greatest player on the planet so the fan base and generations growing up got to watch a run of special (even before the Bulls started winning titles). Hell, even during their drought, their were reasons to watch the team. People had to watch to see if Curry / Chandler would pan out (hype existed). Since Jordan was drafted by the Bulls, they have made the playoffs 24 times in 31 years. If the Bulls reverted to a run of 15 or 20 years with limited playoff appearances or even a 10 year run with 1 playoff appearance you might have saw something different. Heck, had they not been aggressive and tried the Curry / Chandler twin towers experiment, attendance might have finally gotten a hit. You also have to remember the fact that you don't have other competition like Sox do (w/Cubs).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 01:53 PM) It isn't just the Cubs. The Bulls and Bears do the exact same thing. We all know what a great fan sight the United Center is, right? All of the great bars to hang out at Solider Field? All of those titles the Bears and Bulls have put up in the 2000's... Their attendance doesn't falter based on the record of the team. The Sox fan base continues to be different. Bulls won 6 titles and along with the Lakers and Celtics have the best brand awareness in the league (and history of the greatest player and probably the best global brand in the NBA). The Bulls also have been one of the most successful basketball franchises over the past 10 years (in terms of won / loss, unfortunately they haven't gotten the title but consistent playoffs have been made). They had the dark era after the dynasty but I really don't see how you can compare the two and the Bears were a once great team but it is also the NFL and 16 games and almost everything in the NFL sells out, let alone when you are talking about a major market like Chicago (with no split). In the case of the Bears, 8 games in a market like Chicago...how pathetic would it be if you didn't sell out? Plus the product of the NFL is the most popular thing in the states when it comes to sports and has been for at least the past decade and more realistically since the 94 lockout.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 11:11 AM) Trade Avi or make him the DH. Avi is down to 159th out of 164 in terms of WAR, and showing no signs of improvement. Most of his hits of late have been bloopers. Eaton's defense should improve as the season goes on, but Avi's never even had a stretch of solid defense. How does making him DH help? I agree that AVI's defense is a huge negative and a reason why he'll probably never amount to that much, but I don't know that his bat plays at DH either. That said, if their is a taker for LaRoche and it provides freedom to see if Avi can play at DH and allow us to upgrade outfield defense, I'm okay with it.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 12:11 PM) I noticed today that on ESPN's Park Factors, the Cell was dead last in hitter's park factors in 2015, basically making it the #1 pitcher's park in baseball. Is this a sign of how absolutely putrid this offense is? I'm no expert on this, so am I missing something? Here's a rank of the previous years. (above 1.0 favors hitters, below 1.0 favors pitchers) 2015 - .733 (30th) 2014 - 1.052 (7th) 2013 - .998 (14th) 2012 - 1.268 (2nd) 2011 - .991 (14th) edit: Here's the link http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor Combo of Sox offense and our pitching staff (w/effects of small sample size and our pitching staff having some horrific road performances).

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 01:43 PM) Forget about the Cubs. It's almost like comparing apples to oranges. In the '80s, due primarily to the combination of the ultimate salesman in Harry Caray and the power of WGN, they very successfully marketed the Wrigley Field/Wrigleyville experience. The popularity skyrocketed in the mid 80s and has carried to this very day. People go there primarily to experience the ballpark and neighborhood. The Sox have neither of those two things working for them. If the Cubs had neither, they'd have attendance issues, too, given their poor track record for winning. But they do have those two advantages, and therefore you cannot compare the two teams fairly on the attendance front. As for this "excuse du jour", your argument continues to be upside down on all of this. Do you think Sox attendance is what it is this year because Sox fans wake up every day and make a different excuse for not going out to the ballpark? That's ridiculous. They are not going because Reinsdorf, Williams, and Hahn have given them no compelling reason to do so because the team they've given us is about as dreadful as it could get. Sox fans don't need to make an excuse - the team being awful is enough to keep them away. And with no other draw in the form of an amazing ballpark and/or great neighborhood experience, then the low attendance is no surprise. Well said.