Chisoxfn

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 03:11 PM) Frankly, we've heard enough about financial pressures coming from Toronto motivating the Halladay talk (believable or no we heard a ton of it) that it's not unreasonable to think that Toronto would let Rios go and still try to trade Halladay this offseason. They'll probably do exactly that, but the Jays have had a ton of injuries and I think as a whole they feel they can get by without Rios and the financial savings will be huge. If the Jays can they'll do what they can to get Vernon Wells off of there hands but that might be the most un-moveable contract in baseball right now. When the Jays were healthy they had one of the best producing rotations in baseball (it just isn't healthy).

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 02:42 PM) Who do you think is more popular in Toronto....Halladay or Rios? Moving Rios might put them in a better position to keep Halladay. I know Halladay won't renegotiate currently but remember, the Jays were going to trade Roy because he kept saying he wanted to test the market (so the Jays didn't want to lose him for nothing) not because ownership told them they needed to cut-payroll. They want to shed payroll but that is because Wells, Rios and others are making a lot of money and they can't afford paying guys that deserve the money they get because of some of the other contracts on the club.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 02:14 PM) Which makes perfect sense, since Dye is ancient, Pods has had a magically healthy season *knocks on wood, and Quentin's foot needs routine rest anyway. Steve, got your info into the guy that sets up the accounts and I'll pm you the details once it is done.

Surprise: MLB Looking Into Guillen's Comments

The talk in Toronto is that the two teams have been in talks and that the Jays are trying to work out a deal. CJ Retheford name was brought up by the Jays beat-writer as a guy Toronto likes. We'll see what happens.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 02:04 PM) 2009 - ~98 million 2010 - ~60 million 2011 - ~43 million 2012 - ~27 million Not seeing how we're going to be strapped for cash anytime soon Is that counting Peavy?

Consider this the final mass warning. I don't like suspending people but if people continue to assault or attack a poster that is it. No questions ask, any further attacks in this thread will result in a minimum of a 10 day suspension.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 11:50 AM) No way Danks/Mitchell are ready. And I don't want Thome back next year. JD should be brought back as the DH and we'll need to find someone to play LF, possibly Pods. I also don't think we should get rid of AJ unless someone offers a trade we just couldn't say no to. AJ is really undervalued here, and if we were to get rid of him I think we'd pay for it. Flowers has not yet had 1 major league AB. Penciling him in over AJ for next year at this point is a little early IMO. You could make a case that you could afford to go with Danks next season and let him further his development at the big league level, but you'd want to make sure you had a veteran around him to help out with the situation. Obviously the better scenario would be leaving Danks down in the minors with the Sox signing a one year stop-gap but I really don't see many major holes in the rest of the lineup (infield is set and Beckham/Getz will have major league experience under there belts which should help them). Alexei will have more experience as well and I expect to see Flowers getting a lot of playing time as well as he continues his progress at the big league level. Basically put, the 2010 Sox with Rios and Quentin could afford to stick with Danks if they really wanted to and let him take some licks at the big league level.

QUOTE (Pumpkin Escobar @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 10:10 AM) Hence why you highlighted the "if" part of "If his superiors are telling him to dump contract". I obviously do not work for the Jays or talk to their ownership but from everything else I have read - it appears that is their mindset. So this isn't my own thought up speculation, it is what I have seen written which is all we pretty much to go off of. The point wasn't that they need to clear payroll - the point of my post was that the pressure is far from being on KW as Phillips implied and that if anything it would be on JP. Especially "if" they want to shed payroll. Which it seems like everyone thinks they need to and are trying to do. http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=olney_buster If they don't need to clear any payroll - well then I find it hard to comprehend why they wanted to deal their Ace or any other pieces. But good point - I just don't think Phillips has a clue. He is a guy who has been there and can shed some light but there is a reason why he isn't remotely near that kind of position anymore. If they had to shed payroll they would have dumped there ace. Instead they put him on the market and asked for a ridiculous offer. If they didn't get it, he was staying put. That in no way shape or form tells you that they needed to shed-payroll.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 9, 2009 -> 11:32 AM) Kane never had to take any tests because there was no rule that he had to go to college before he entered the NHL. Personally I find theft and assault worse than cheating, but thats just me. Ya, this is pathetic. If true, a big f*** You goes out to Kane and he should get booed out of arenas everywhere. What a jag.

QUOTE (chisoxfan09 @ Aug 8, 2009 -> 12:31 AM) Does Homberg have any upside? If so what is his project AA/AAA timeframe? 2012? Very hard to put a timeline on a high-schooler but ya, he's got upside and he could be a very good one but I think any guesses right now would be very generalized. If things went really well he'd hit AA in 2011 or so (that would allow for at least a full season in A ball).

QUOTE (G&T @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 06:29 AM) I remember in 2004 Boston freaked out because Manny was placed on waivers. In any event, I hope McCulloch is traded so I can see the inevitable "We are very excited and envision him in the starting rotation next season" non-sense from whoever picks him up. Then I will laugh and laugh. Boston placed Manny on waivers hoping someone would have just taken his entire contract off of there hands.

McCulloch might be a good guy for the Jays in the sense that they could claim he's a former 1st rounder who just needs a change of scenery. Basically to tell fans, not only did we dump his contract but we got something that might be decent too (even though we all know he's crap).

White Sox Weekend: Rumors, Returns, A Rant, and a Letdown By Mario Scalise The White Sox season till this point can probably best be described in a word: tease. Watch them, and you know deep down they are nothing more than a slightly above average team in a questionably average division. But then they offer moments of surprise, and get you thinking they are more than they seem. Take out a three-game series with the Orioles, and over their past 28 games they've played three of the AL's best 11 times and lesser divisional opponents 14 times. The results...Read the Whole Story Right Here

QUOTE (chisoxfan09 @ Aug 8, 2009 -> 12:16 AM) Kenny, quick question on this. I think you might know. Huddie signed in 2008 and this is his first full year in MILB. But those 3 months of service time count (2008) towards his 6 year contract right? Here is my question: 1. 2008 - 3 months service time MILB 2. 2009 - 1 full year service time MILB 3. 2010 - Projected 1 full year service time MLB 4. 2011 - Projected 1 full year service time MLB 5. 2012 - Projected 1 full year service time MLB 6. 2013 - Projected 1 full year service time MLB 7. 2014 - ??? ** All his MLB year are just hypothetical ** Which years from 2012-2014 are arb years and which are really under control and what the Sox pay him according to the CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) which classifies him as a non Free Agent until after the 2014 season? Since he signed the contract in July/Aug of 2008 does it run exactly 6 years to the date into the same month in 2014 or until the end of the 2014 season? See this is the confusing part as many draft players sign between the draft at the end of June and before the signing deadling of Aug 17th which is still before the end of the MLB season. Players generally sign 6 year initial contracts as prospects out of the draft is what I understand. Once a player is in the majors, the 6 years starts. The only exception is if a player signs a contract that excludes a team from offering him aribtration and at that point the team loses there exclusive rights. There are some ways to get more time out of a player based upon when you call him up though.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Aug 8, 2009 -> 01:54 AM) From an absolute baseball and talent point of view, Alex Rios is essentially the player people have clamored to get for several years. There is virtually no difference between his high, medium, and low leverage situations in regards to OPS throughout the entirety of his career. However, in high leverage spots, when the game is generally close and late, he has hit .305 with a .352 OBP, but to the tune of a .791 OPS. This suggests that when the situation calls for it, he has absolutely no problem going for a good solid base hit or walk, just to get himself on base so he or someone else can get him into scoring position, or so he can drive in the tying or go-ahead run. In medium leverage spots, he has put up his best numbers, and this is the most likely time that he is going to swing for the fences and try and put a game out of reach. Of his career 79 home runs, 42 of them have come in medium leverage spots. This suggests that he has no problem taking more chances when the team is either trailing or winning by more than one, be it early or late. Hence, he's only put up a .329 OBP, but his OPS is the highest of all situations at a very solid .795 (only slightly higher than high leverage). He's a lesser combined version of both high and medium in low leverage situations; he'll hit for power, he'll take a walk, but he obviously loses focus in games out of reach and as such, his OPS is .770 in such situations. The only problem I have with acquiring a guy like Rios is the intangible factor; it wasn't long ago that his name was brought up as a potential trade candidate, and someone posted a video to him on YouTube. (NSFW) At his price, and with his ability, you have to take a chance. I would also say that his acquisition would be the beginning of the end for Jermaine Dye in a White Sox uniform. He's been the best free agent signing in White Sox history, but he's a DH at this point in his career, and his role, especially with this move, would become very easily replaced. The Sox can run out a very good platoon between LF, CF, RF, and DH with Quentin, Podsednik, Dye, Thome, and Rios if they made such a move, and they probably weaken the Tigers in the process. Whether the Sox actually want to make this move or not is debatable. I think this is obviously a move to block Detroit from making a play on Rios, but if the price is right (ie free or cheap), KW won't hesitate to bring him aboard. If they start asking for Hudson or Danks, then Rios will remain a Blue Jay. It's as simple as that. The Sox aren't going to take a chance on this type of contract because they are blocking the Tigers. Heck, the Tigers really don't have room to add this type of contract so if the Sox put in a waiver request, as has been reported, they've clearly decided that he'd fit in perfectly on this team next year and the next couple of years. And if you think about it, he's a younger version of Figgins that plays plus defense out in CF (not as good of a base-stealer as Figgins but he has more pop) and if the Sox were to go after Figgins this off-season it will probably cost a signficant chunk of money (you also have to contend with other teams) and you'll be losing a draft pick. This makes sense if the Sox had initially intended on Figgins. You get Rios, whose a quality player that would be unique to the Sox (they don't have many guys like Rios) and I think he'll really help this team.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Aug 7, 2009 -> 09:50 PM) Puzzeling move when you read it, but when you break things down, it makes a lot of sense. Like others have said, if the Sox are confident adding Rios will help this team and not hinder them from making future moves, payroll wise, I'm all for it. I agree. We obviously have to hope he plays to his potential but there is no doubting the guy makes the Sox a much better team.

Wow, that makes zero sense. If I'm the Jays I say thank you and let him walk. If you can get something for him even better, but worse case just say he's yours.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Aug 7, 2009 -> 04:13 AM) I understand the blister issue, but he was bad before and has been bad since. Is it time for a quick DL trip? I think he's suffering from the added workload he had last season. He hasn't been very sharp or crisp in a long while. I still think he's got a bright future but theres a reason I have a bigger man crush on Floyd

All I can say is the Sox are starting to use Charlotte as a place to develop prospects a bit more. Flowers is there, Hudson there, Becks spent a little time there, etc.

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Aug 6, 2009 -> 08:11 AM) Torres looked servicable against Tampa and the first start jitters should be gone. Hudson will have all of this stuff to work through. I'd also like to see if Torres does ok for him to stay up until Peavy is ready and then stay with the team through September. The starters could use that extra day I would think which they will not be getting if they skip the number 5 spot. I prefer Torres right now. He's more ready. Plus he's a lot better than I think some people think. Torres is going to have a solid major league career if used properly.

Whats the score, etc?

QUOTE (rockren @ Aug 5, 2009 -> 12:52 PM) Yes, Yes. Don't forget the eye test. Its tough. Right now I'd say that most of that front-end of the class looks real good. The Reds clearly are kicking themselves for passing up on Smoak and Beckham for Alonso and the Marlins are doing the same for Kyle Skipworth.

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Aug 5, 2009 -> 11:23 AM) ...check out Jeff Francouer's rookie stats and remember how people were so ga-ga over him too... .300/.336/.549/.885 70 GP, 272 AB, 14 HR, 20 2B, 1 3B, 45 RBI, 11BB it would seem like the lack of walks and reliance on homers made this predictable, but Francoeur was hitting .300 over 70 games with a ton of doubles...doesn't that sound familiar? His career line is currently a disappointing .266/.308/.424/.732 and the power numbers have been relatively down since 06 - just 82 career homers. So what happened to Jeff Francouer? Couldn't the same thing happen to Beckham? It could, but Francouer had major flaws in his swing that people knew about. On top of it he didn't have a handle of the strike zone.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 5, 2009 -> 08:10 AM) lol... "I have only seen it on one blog" Did he really say that?