Marty34

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 10:58 PM) BECAUSE HE'S A GOOD CONTACT HITTER AND SLICK FIELDER? You cannot be pleased with how many outs he makes.

Morel needs to be sent to Charlotte.

Cito would replace Ozzie

Has any other Sox GM come close to squandering the resources KW has?

Just wanted to throw this out here for those who follow the minor league system more than I do. I'm slightly more optimistic than where were were at the end of last year because Viciedo is tearing it up and Reed looks like someone who has a nice future. Short too and Danks might no be a lost cause. Tempering my optimism is Mitchell's struggles and a ho-hum draft in a deep draft class.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 18, 2011 -> 03:59 PM) And crappy defense has hurt this team all year in case you haven't been paying attention. About the only good spot has been the infield. And where has this good infield defense gotten them? .465 ball.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 18, 2011 -> 03:52 PM) 1. A little more pop doesn't help you if you can't field the ball. If you haven't seen Morel doing the job at 3b you haven't been paying attention. 2. Mark Teahen's .577 OPS is not "a little more pop" in the lineup. morel/Pierre back-to-back combo has hurt this offense all year in case you haven't been paying attention.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 18, 2011 -> 03:33 PM) That's um, teh exact opposite of simple. Lillibridge has never played 3rd, and Teahen has never played 3rd well. Morel has been hitting well since the start of May, and has taken time to grow in at every step in the org. PLus, he's playing plus defense already, while Teahen would play at best bad defense there. I think calling that 3b proposal "Simple" is pretty arrogant myself. Simply, this offense isn't good enough to carry Morel's glove.

Best short-term fix would be to send Morel down, platoon Lillibridge and Teahen at third, Viciedo up and bench Pierre. It's so simple that the only thing preventing it is this outfit's incredible arrogance.

This is the stuff that I don't understand, being excited over making up ground. When they get to 4 games back of the leader in the loss column they'll be contenders. Until then they are also-rans.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 7, 2011 -> 01:29 PM) You can't find anything on mlb.com about any of our picks. You've got to google them to get any info. Search term: "Signability not an issue" :-)

Sale should go down and start, Bruney takes his spot. Danks to the pen until he figures it out, Marquis takes Harrell's spot. Two of Buehrle, Jackson, and Floyd are dealt. Sale returns in August to the rotation. Peavy, Danks, Humber, Buehrle?, Sale. Pretty good odds that will be your rotation going into 2012.

Ozzie isn't the problem, he's not the solution, but he isn't the problem.

What galls me is this team won't even make the easiest change to get better. Replace Pierre with Viciedo. Until they do that I view the situation as hopeless.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ May 29, 2011 -> 02:15 PM) Well we are going to be. We don't have very tradeable assets. We don't pick til 47th this year. We have huge contracts tied up to unproductive and injured players. We really won't be good for like five years IMO. Five years would be under incompetent direction. Big market team like the Sox should be two years.

Any "it's early" folks still out there?

Even though they are playing better, it's hard to have a good feeling about this trip. Too bad so much is riding on it.

If Peavy returns as a top-of-the-rotation-starter (and give it at least 3-4 more starts) my expectations for this team rise. In reality, it might still be too late.

Was hoping Morel got on base there so that we could've cleared the Pierre spot leading off the 6th.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 14, 2011 -> 03:55 PM) Forbes is guessing too, they are just putting it in a prettier package. Even if you use the Forbes numbers it doesnt account for taxes, depreciation, interest, etc (this is the notation that is right on their own numbers), so my $5-10mil range is including those factor they dont add in. /shrugs They dont even indicate how they came up with their figures, did the White Sox give them access to their books? Again, no offense, but I think Forbes has a better handle on this than you. You also said that a profit of $5M-10M a year isn't all that substantial. Considering the value of the business increased an estimated 2.5x in the last eight years, even your $5-$10M profit a year is something I'd bet JR is happy about.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 14, 2011 -> 03:36 PM) There are many different methodologies for valuation, and the extra value of the Astros most likely has to do with scarcity. There are only 30 professional major league teams and most of them are not for sale. So if you actually want to buy a baseball team you generally pay a premium, which is an amount in excess of the actual value of the product. I expect the Sox make money, I just think its more likely in the range of $5-$10mil every year, which really isnt that substantial of a figure. The Sox dont have a stadium they can take loans against, so they have to funds. You're guessing that the Sox make between $5M-$10M a year. No offense, but I'll take Forbes as a more accurate view.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 14, 2011 -> 03:34 PM) Isn't there part of a cable network included in that deal (which Forbes wouldn't include in the team valuation). Yes, with the Rockets. Maybe they are undervaluing cable networks as a whole which of course would mean the Sox 25% stake in CSN is undervalued.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 14, 2011 -> 03:20 PM) We're 9 back. 10 in loss column.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 14, 2011 -> 03:20 PM) Obviously the website does not let me look at their methodology. Something doesnt seem right but without actually having the data they are using its impossible to tell. Talking about Forbes' numbers? Maybe they're conservative. The Astros are going to be sold for $680M and they had them valued at $474M.

10 games is a lot to make up.