Chisoxfn

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 01:15 PM) Not one person alive said, I am hungry, let's get something eat. Where shall we go...U.S. Cellular field. The food is good but it is not drawing in fans same as the food at Wrigley is not driving the fans away. Stadium food may not draw in fans but I have been to a lot of MLB stadiums (20+) and the cell is near the top of my list when it comes to foods. It might be the foods I get that are in particular, but the sausages with the sweet peppers and onions are amongst the best in baseball (and the other food I've had has been solid). I actually am in general a very huge fan of the lower bowl at the cell in comparison to many of the stadiums I've been too. Clearly the cell won't compare to places like San Fran or Camden or even a Fenway (which has the history...although I would be apalled if I was a season ticket holder because if I go to many games, I want to have some of those amenities like comfortable seats w/leg room for this generation (and I'm not a big guy). Product is what in most cases drives tickets or no tickets. Product on field has suffered past few years and we never were able to get past consistently contending and consistently making the the playoffs (which would have been a huge game changer).

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 01:30 PM) Perhaps the NBA should make verbal agreements binding. It really screws with teams. I don't believe you can. I'm not a lawyer but from what I recall from my business law class, certain agreements can be verbal and binding in a court of law and I remember something about a dollar threshold and year threshold (also things like real estate, IIRC, had to no matter what be in writing). I thought no verbal agreement in excess of 1 year can be binding. I also presume that the offered contract far exceeds any threshold on $'s. So bottom line, even if Mark wanted to say it was a verbal agreement, the actual agreement would be completely illegal and unenforceable. Note: I'll let one of our attorney's blow my argument up but I think generally speaking I'm correct.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 01:20 PM) Yeah I think teams will start making sure players sign the contract ASAP after they verbally agree after this whole debacle. That is the problem, you aren't allowed to sign the contract until 12:01 AM Thursday. Right now you can only verbally agree. I presume this was done so you could meet w/multiple people without offers being made but I say forget it, let people go crazy and not know what is going to happen.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 12:52 PM) Personally, I think a verbal commitment is a commitment and a deal is a deal, but didn't Billy Donovan make a commitment to coach an NBA team years ago, but backed out? In college football, verbal commitments seemingly mean next to nothing. I'm sure Jordan's Clipper teammates called him and had a lot to do with his flip flop, but that has never been considered tampering. In fact, I would bet Cuban has had Mav players talk to guys in the past. I do think Jordan is a doofus if he backs out. It does screw Dallas a bit, and with the salary cap I find that a bit unfair. The big thing that it does to Dallas too is they wouldn't have signed Wes Matthews if they didn't have Jordan (at least I don't think). I agree on Jordan's part, an agreement is an agreement, that said, I don't see how the verbal commitment is binding (given the type of contract being discussed). Reality is it is a risk that exists if the league is going to have this non-sense of you can verbally agree, but not sign. I think its all junk and you should be able to recruit and sign people at the same time. I know it in theory allows everyone to get their ducks in a row but if people are going to agree they are going to agree anyway.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 11:42 AM) Apparently he is talking legal action for tampering. the grand offseason of Doc River, GM extraordinaire, continues How the heck have they tampered? Guy isn't under contract and he was last with the Clippers.

DeAndre to have final meeting w/Clippers. Has their been a high profile player who reached a verbal agreement who then switched. Not one of those, people reported but one of those, everyone reported and even Mark commented on it (and got fined) type of deal? Just curious. I presume their has, I just can't think of it. I guess you had Boozer leaving Cleveland for Utah, but that was a bit different.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 10:49 AM) It's either the fans fault or the Cubs fans credit. It certainly isn't because the Cubs have been more successful on the field since then. predates my time, but how much were the Sox impacted by Cubs being on WGN and Sox being on cable vision or whatever the pay per view like network they were on which I presume significantly narrowed the fan base. You also wonder how much Harray Carray actually helped drive the value as well (as he kind of symbolized everything as well). And also you have to give some credit to the Cubs for marketing the events as giant parties and I guess the overall corporate culture of Chicago which ensures enough people can get to the games and have a blast (and the location of Wrigley maybe helps in this way, not sure). Ahhh, I should stop rambling.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 10:42 AM) The fact is there are always excuses...the Cubs were playing, there was wrestling in Rosemont, it looked like it might rain, those are fine, legitimate excuses, but they are excuses, and it is one reason why the White Sox seem to always have to do things half-assed, and hope they get lucky. Their excuse is just as valid as any of ours. The Sox have their own reasons to make excuses but I never saw the Angels make massive excuses when they were a huge secondary market team in comparison to the Dodgers (far more so then the Sox / Cubs based upon my eye test) prior to the Angels winning a world series. Then the Angels won a world series and went on a collective long-term run of winning baseball and at the same time a collective long-term run of 3M+ fans and being one of the top teams in terms of attendance and revenues (and even got a pretty massive TV contract as a result) all while playing second fiddle to a gigantic behemoth of the Dodgers (much more of a behemoth in terms of revenues, etc then the Cubs). The Angels even drew during the ocassional down year (although in those down years they had a plan and some exciting players and a team to watch, just some guys who didn't work). I think their owner is a jackhole, but you know what, if the Sox built a winning team and did it over the long haul they'd see their fan base grow and with consistent winning comes consistent generations who will cheer and follow your team. I don't want to hear excuses and cries from a front office, I want to see results. You have limitations, you need to adjust your strategy and work through those limitations. The Sox have played at a payroll where they absolutely could be contending year in and year out (and relevatively speaking during the great extent of the KW run we did...however, unlike the Angels, we didn't get those multiple division titles that truly help cement the fan base) but you know what we could have and while some more money might have helped, better decisions or performance might have helped too. A lot of luck goes into things but I don't see many franchises more public about impacts of attendance on the team. Heck, attendance is #3 in what drives revenue (behind national and local tv money). Build an exciting team and consistent winner and the other stuff happens. It isn't easy to do it but when it doesn't work, I don't want to hear excuses, I want to see changes and results.

You know what drives attendance more then anything...winning and exciting baseball and the Sox provide none of it. I have a hard time freaking watching the games and I am as diehard as it gets. They are terrible and play terrible baseball. With some of the consistent mental and just poor fundamental mistakes these guys make, it is just hard to watch. I can purely sit and watch Sale and be mesmerized and then the team hits or fields and I just get annoyed and irritated as can be. I've watched a lot of bad Sox teams and been able to enjoy watching the game, I have a hard time enjoying much anything with Sox baseball right now and if that is how I feel, I can't imagine how Joe fan feels and why they would go, other then the, we haven't caught a game this year, lets go.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 09:23 AM) Urias is the #3 prospect in baseball, c'mon, you'd be lucky to get him if you offered Quintana. I've long said Q to the Dodgers would make a lot of sense. I'd even do something like Q and Shark to the Dodgers for Urias, Puig and 2 more prospects. Not sure if Dodgers would but that would significantly bolster their rotation this year and give them flexibility long term (which they want a long-term starter who is under contract...i.e., Q). Also, please note, I do not think the Dodgers would trade Urias for Shark. I absolutely love Urias.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 08:50 AM) Yes and the team collapsed down the stretch and all the pundits pointed at that move as huge reason why. MLBTR says AA will deal from the ML roster though. If thats the case, I can see a deal with Navarro coming back in some sort of package for Shark. I never said the move worked. You said people don't do it and I gave you a direct recent example where it happened. White Sox and Yankees did it when they swapped Contreras for Loaiza. Sox were still at the time (attempting to contend), although they were also looking to get a guy they thought had more long-term upside and could be here in another year.

QUOTE (BigFinn @ Jul 7, 2015 -> 09:10 PM) I've been flipping through the mlb pipeline website for prospects among the contending teams in the #3 to #5 range, and boy is it slim pickings. The Yankees top 5 prospects: #1 Luis Severino, an undersized 2-pitch pitcher #2 Aaron Judge, a 6'7" RF who has a lot of power with a lot of swing and miss #3 Jorge Mateo, a 20 year old shortstop in the Sally League who may have to move off short because of a weak arm #4 Greg Bird, a defensively challenged first baseman #5 Robert Refsnyder, a defensively challenged second baseman How about Houston: #1 Carlos Correa, SS, he's not going anywhere #2 Mark Appel, RHP, he's not going anywhere #3 Domingo Santana, he's a .300 hitting outfielder with some swing and miss problems #4 Vincent Velazquez, RHP, he's not going anywhere #5 Michael Feliz, RHP, I doubt that he's going anywhere The Dodgers (say it like Vin Scully): #1 Corey Seager, SS, will not be traded in a Samardzija deal #2 Julio Urias, LHP, probably will not be traded in a Samardzija deal #3 Grant Holmes, RHP, pitching in the Midwest League #4 Jose DeLeon, RHP, pitching at AA Tulsa, intriguing, fastball-slider-change. He's been a wee bit tateriffic since his promotion #5 Alex Verdugo, OF, playing in the Midwest League Three contenders, one intriguing prospect. That's not to say that Corey Seager isn't intriguing, but he won't be coming over in a trade for Samardzija. Toronto is looking like a good trading partner for the Shark. Urias would be intriguing and the Dodgers have other guys as well. I don't think they would give him up but I'd trade Jeff for Urias in a heart beat. Mega upside out of that kid (same time that is why Dodgers won't).

QUOTE (BigFinn @ Jul 7, 2015 -> 06:15 PM) That's a good value for Samardzija. CBS Sports baseball guru Jon Heyman has suggested Jeff Hoffman or Max Pentecost (#3 and #4, respectively, on the MLB.com Blue Jays top prospect list) as the centerpiece for a Chicago-Toronto trade. Hoffman has 9 starts at high-A Dunedin this season since coming off Tommy John surgery. Here's his stat line. Pentecost had his shoulder cleaned out last fall by Dr. James Andrews (his second shoulder surgery). He hasn't played since. His bat showed promise in his first season of pro ball: the stat line for Pentecost. Heyman must have read my post.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jul 7, 2015 -> 08:08 PM) Do you two really believe the Blue Jays' FO is fickle enough to become more interested in Shark because of one start against their own team? Yes. Realism. To be honest, I do believe a start against your own team can actually drive you to be more interested in a player. It is a fickle business and everyone knows about what Jeff did last year (very strong season, including down the stretch with the A's). Now they know he had his early struggles but a FO could look at the recent splits and see how he has trended upward and then more guys get to watch the start against the team (just more top brass on hand) who can see the "stuff" and what he was capable of doing against what they know is one of the premiere offenses in baseball. So yes, it has impacts. Inherent one is more top people get recent eyes on a guy against a really good talent base. How much of an impact, I wouldn't quantify it as significant but I would still say it has a positive effect.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 07:47 AM) Runs Scored - Runs Allowed first 81 games: Top 5- KC, Hou, NY, LAA, Min (1749-1587) Average game 4.32-3.92 Middle 5- Tor, Bal, TB, Tex, Det (1800-1683) Average game 4.44-4.16 Bottom 5- Cle, Sea, Bos, Chi, Oak (1572-1710) Average game 3.88-4.22 White Sox 3.41-4.38 Not only is the Sox offense an embarrassment, their starting pitching has been below par besides Sale and Quintana, and the bullpen isn't that great either. How much are those runs allowed impacted by our crap defense?

QUOTE (shipps @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 08:47 AM) Jeep has had water pump issues for years. I don't get why they can figure it out. Jeep has had issues for decades. They are beautiful looking cars and do 4x4 right but they have horrific and I mean horrific build quality.

QUOTE (zenryan @ Jul 7, 2015 -> 08:32 PM) I wouldnt say constantly but didnt look good tonight. 1. Should've gotten smoked tonight. Guess this team still has a big head from their meaningless friendly wins. 2. Klinnsman still showing he has zero clue on a back line. That is the best four? That line was so bad that Chandler wasnt nowhere near being the worst of the bunch. 3. Klinnsman has he favorites(anyone with a German born parent) but if you end up on his s*** list then its lights out for you. 4. This ref sucked even by CONCACAF standards. Honduras was hacking away all match long and he let them get away with it. 5. But its always fun to be dirty/cheap ass Central American teams. Between the flopping and hacking, it's annoying watching these teams. I thought US was the superior team in the first half (and had a couple other golden ops that they didn't capitalize on). They got tired and were up and completely collapsed but by no means can I say they should have gotten smoked. Those last 20-30 minutes were ugly, but at the same time, a lot of those Honduras ops in the 2nd half were due to brutal non-calls by the officials. Defense was horrifically sloppy and technique was brutal. Just not aggressive in coming up to draw the off-sides and just very non-instinctive.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 7, 2015 -> 08:13 PM) The U.S. Men's team needs an Improvement in strength and conditioning. They constantly look out of shape. I actually think historically conditioning has been one of our strengths, however, yesterday, they looked totally out of shape.

I wonder if Buehrle decides to play next year and if he does (clearly he's still good), whether the Sox would be an option. I miss Mark. And yes, I'm sentimental when it comes to Mark. Miss watching him pitch for the Sox.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 7, 2015 -> 01:51 PM) Why would a team trying to contend trade away one of their starters? Same thing with the Jays and Travis, I am not sure any GM out there is willing to make his lineup worse to get a SP its just robbing Peter to pay Paul. If I am dealing with the Twins I want a SS (Polanco or Gordon) and Adam Brett Walker. Billy Beane did it when he gave up Cepedes to get Lester.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 7, 2015 -> 11:38 AM) KD is not coming to Chicago. We have had multiple "bulls clear out cap space to chase the star, this year it will happen!" moments. We all thought Love/Aldridge would be the ones that happened. They didn't. Melo didnt'. Lebron/Wade didn't. Davis won't. We may get a meeting, but he'll be going to Washington, OKC, NYK, Lakers, etc. He is not going to the Lakers or NYK. You can count on that. I think Washington / OKC are there and this isn't really a clear out the cap space to chase the star thing. We wouldn't have to do much to clear out the cap space (and in reality we are going to have at least $15M to play with unless we extend Noah in-season). And I did say I don't think Durant is coming here but he isn't the only FA available. The real reason behind my post was that we will have money to play with for the right piece(s) if they are out their.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 7, 2015 -> 11:13 AM) There is still a decent chance that the Sox are out of the game due to going over their limit this season. Obviously this didn't play out the way you would have liked but it sounds like the Sox are still on Eddy Martinez. If they do go big for Martinez, hopefully they can pull in someone like Jorge Ona as well. Sox aren't going over their limit this year.

Unrelated sidenote, but for all the b****ing, Bulls could make a few maneuvers and have max money to throw around to the 2016 class (KD). You get their by moving Taj or having Gasol elect his player option and opting out. Could maneuver it many other ways as well. Thought that was interesting as this is a very good team who can contend (didn't say favorites but can absolutely contend) and should still remain attractive to major free agents. I don't know if we will make the moves to do it or if Durant is the right guy to grab but interesting either way. I know the front office has whiffed at the big guys (but so have the Lakers) and in terms of the 3 largest markets we still would be on paper offering by far the best chance to contend and win a title.

Also, evidently Gar Forman and Andre Miller were at White Sox game last night. He's clearly old and past his prime but a good veteran leader and I always feel like he makes some nice plays in the post-season. Almost 40 but I'd be on board at vet minimum.

Aaron Brooks resigns with Bulls on 1 year deal. I am not a Brooks fan but like him as a 3rd point guard / bench guy who you throw out and if he's hot you ride him, if he's not, you pine him. Problem is right now he's our 2nd pg (along with Hinrich). I still think we need an upgrade at backup spot with someone who could start in a pinch, however, given where market went, seems unlikely with our tax payers exemption. So with that said, glad we have Brooks inked cause we'd be screwed if we failed to get anyone else (at least in regular season). My opinion of Brooks might have been different if he didn't completely dissapear in the post-season (in limited minutes). Again, when used right he can be an effective bench guy who can help you gain better seeding in regular season whose value declines a bit in post-season (with exception of the, give him a few minutes, see if he's hot and ride him if he is...if he isn't, you need to pull him quick cause anything else he does is negative (i.e., defense). I hope front office can somehow find another PG. Lin would have been so nice (not that he is good but he's a good bench player who could occasionally start in a pinch). I actually think Lin is underrated by most (and then of course you have the group that still overrate him from his Knicks days but I think a lot more underrate him because of how much unwarranted hype he got from that run).