BlackBetsy

No surprises, although Howard did not get picked that I heard. Fabio Castro picked with 1st pick. Since the Sox passed, they will not be selecting anyone.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 7, 2005 -> 11:54 AM) I'm pretty sure Tony G. is Konerko's best friend in baseball. There won't be any problems bringing him back into the clubhouse. Don't know about that, but Graffanino was a groomsman at Konerko's wedding. Graffanino went to KC because they have a profoundly Christian ballclub - not that he didn't like the Sox, but that KC was the baseball equivalent of a Christian high school.

FYI - the article entitled "Furcal is key to Cubs' Big Plans" written by Dave Van Dyck is no longer on the Trib web site. That organization moves fast to protect themselves from embarrassment.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 30, 2005 -> 09:38 PM) add anderson to the deal and you might, might, be in the ballpark. Maybe. The Nats may need a reliever, but Frank Robinson has shown time and time again that he can get bullpen performance out of just about anyone. I doubt they'd overpay for Marte by giving up Wilkerson. Wilkerson's defense in CF is a bit spotty. I went to about 15 Nats games this year and was never impressed. Once the Nats acquired Preston Wilson mid-season, he was relegated to LF and 1B (when Nick Johnson was out of the lineup). But I'd seriously consider Ryan Church for Marte straight up. Church can play CF in a pinch, and would be a good guy to platoon with Brian Anderson and/or Jermaine Dye. Pods could move to CF against righties, and you could have a very nice 4 man rotation to keep Pods and Dye fresh and to spell Anderson against tough righties (although the toughest righty Anderson faced was King Felix, who he took yard twice).

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Nov 30, 2005 -> 11:07 PM) Rogo hit .293/.374/.444 last year at Birmingham. Real nice OBP there, but the SLG% is very, very low (obviously). I'd start him at Charlotte, and in late '06, '07, use him in a Ross Gload type role pre-injury, playing LF/RF/1B. Ozzie likes versatility, plus, if he can add a little power, there's a chance he could be a pretty decent hitter. He's organizational depth at this point.... It'll be interesting to see if a smaller market club with a need at 1B/LF would be willing to take a flier on him. Not clear what value he would have on his own - he'd have to be part of a package.

QUOTE(joeynach @ Nov 30, 2005 -> 07:42 PM) I think your are missing Viscaino on there, remember there is not enough room for Marte, Viscaino, and McCarthy in the pen. THat is unless we decide to have 7 releivers which is not normal. Thome is to make 12.5 mil this year and the sox got 22 mil to pay for his 3 years of service. So thats 7.33 mil per year to pay his contract so for 2006 we pay 12.5-7.33 = 5.17 for Thome, in 07 and 08 we pay 6.67 mil per year for him. Damn. Good pick up. I will correct. You are right, that means that someone is the odd man out in the bullpen.

Here's what I have for the Sox with their current payroll: # player 2006 1 Konerko $12.00 2 Buehrle $7.65 3 Garcia $9.00 4 Contreras $7.00 5 Dye $5.00 6 Hernandez $4.50 7 Thome $8.00 8 Hermie $3.00 9 Marte $2.50 10 Iguchi $2.40 11 Podsednik $1.90 12 Politte $1.20 13 Uribe $3.15 14 Widger $0.65 15 Anderson $0.35 (club control) 16 McCarthy $0.35 (club control) 17 Ozuna $0.50 18 Jenks $0.35 (club control) 19 Cotts $0.35 (club control) To be determined 20 Crede $2.00 * estimate - arbitration 21 Vizcaino $1.50 * estimate (arbitration) 22 Pierzynski $4.50 * estimate - arbitration 23 Garland $6.00 * estimate - arbitration 24 Harris $0.60 * estimate - arbitration 25 OF $1.00 * estimate (Timo 2005 salary) Total $85.45 [note - edited to include Vizcaino. Final roster has 12 pitchers. The Sox carried 11 to start 2005] If the Sox move El Duque or Marte, that obviously clears up some additional salary. Moving El Duque or Marte would get the Sox an additional $7 million in payroll flexibility.

I voted "No." I liked getting Jim Thome. I think the Sox could have given up less. If you swapped out Sean Tracey for Gio Gonzalez, I'm OK with the deal. If you swapped out Josh Fields the 3B for Gio, I'm OK with the deal. If you swapped out Ray Liotta for Gio, I'm OK with the deal. But I just don't get giving up the Sox's TWO best pitching prospects (I don't consider BMac a prospect any more - he had 70 innings in MLB) for a guy the Phillies absolutely HAD to move, and that they could only trade to a handful of teams because of his N/T clause. IMHO, KW overpaid for Thome, and he could have gotten a better deal. Gio put up BMAC like stats in A ball last year and looked poised to succeed in B'ham. I think he's the real deal and would be the eventual replacement for whoever among Buehrle, Garland, or Garcia the Sox could not resign.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 01:21 PM) I actually see the Tribe regressing next year because I think they are going to lose out on most of there in-house guys and are not going to be able to find equally talented replacements. Hard to say - they also have a lot of internal options (Fernando Cabrera?) and a lot of their top guys are just hitting their peaks. I don't expect anyone to play worse next year, and Jhonny Peralta looks like a monster at shortstop.

Let me also add what Jon Sickels says about Hanley Ramirez, the #1 prospect of the Red Sox in this deal: .271/.335/.385 in DOUBLE A, and they trade Beckett for him? That's Peter Gammons hype for you. Anibel Sanchez is a better prospect. Here's Sickels again:

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Nov 22, 2005 -> 09:00 AM) Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but BB remember the Pro is a big time pitchers park. Beckett had a 2.47 era at home last year and a 4.31 era on the road. Going to fenway plus the american league is going to give that era a pretty substantial jump. PP is definitely a pitcher's park, no doubt. But it's not 2 runs better of a pitcher's park, and that 2005 split has a small sample size problem. His career split is 3.13/3.85, which is a little more representative. I think Beckett is probably a guy who puts up a 3.70 ERA next year. With the Red Sox lineup, that's good enough for 17-20 wins if he starts 32 games. Remember, he's 25 this year, meaning that he'll hit his peak for Boston in the next 4 years. Expect big things. Add in the fact that Lowell will bounce back, and this is a 5-10 win deal for the Red Sox, even if they have to replace Damon. Nixon is probably going to bounce back next year, so that will help their production anyway. On paper (and thank God games are not played on paper), the Red Sox team looks like it will cruise to 100-105 wins. Then they can throw out Beckett, Schilling, Wells and Clement in a short series. Yikes.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Nov 22, 2005 -> 08:49 AM) Woah, talk about an overreaction. Their rotation still isn't very good and their bullpen is still awful. Schilling isn't the same, he's done imo. Beckett while very solid when healthy has still never pitched 200 innings in his career, you can't just pencil him in for a whole year. Wells is average at best right now and will probably end up back on the Padres or some where on the west coast. Clement had an era of around 6 in the 2nd half last year and 21 in the alds . Wakefield is and probably will be again their most consistant starting pitcher. That team is far from a world series team imo. All of this might be true if they had the White Sox offense of 2005. Instead, they'll still have the Red Sox offense, which makes this team unbelievable. Remember, they still won 95 games with their s***ty pitching this year. A healthy Schilling, a healthy Foukle and Beckett are worth at least 5 extra games in the standings, if not 10 games. I see the Yankees' first place reign in the AL East ending.

This trade is an absolute joke....two major league players for 3 Gammons-hyped Red Sox prospects. Who was the last hot Red Sox prospect? Whatever happened to that Freddy Sanchez guy? Gammons is on the payroll hyping these guys 24/7 and the Marlins swallow the bait hard. Hard not to see Boston winning 100 games next year with: Schilling-Beckett-Wells-Clement-Wakefield. Arroyo can be a long man. Plus, Lowell just had 1 down year. Plexiglass principle says he'll bounce back and go .270/.360/.490 with the Red Sox and play gold glove defense. Ugh. Your 2006 World Champion Red Sox.

QUOTE(Wealz @ Nov 14, 2005 -> 03:56 PM) Do you know if that's full season, of both full and split? I don't know how the Sox do it, but many baseball teams consider people who have 1/2 season plans as 0.5 "season ticket equivalents" or something like that. So, for example, 17,000 might be 13,000 full season plans + 8,000 1/2 season plans. 6 "Ozzie plan" holders would equal 1 season ticket, so the number of "season ticket equivalents" might increase even further when those are sold. If, on the other hand, all 17,000 are full season plans, there are some higher number of "season ticket equivalents" out there. IIRC, the Nationals sold something like 23,000 season ticket equivalents this year and about 25% of those - 6,000 or so - were the 1/2 season plan and 1/4 season plan holders aggregated together to equal 81 game packages.

QUOTE(Steff @ Nov 11, 2005 -> 04:58 PM) Relative to the other side of town.. the Sox are a bargin with their pricing. Also, they are one of the last in all of MLB who does staggard pricing. I know it sucks for those strapped for cash, but if we want top talent, we're going to have to contribute to it in this way. And if we keep winning.. it will only get worse. You could raise even more money for the Sox if you had one of those Nielsen boxes on your TV.....

This is not entirely surprising given the way Rowand played in Yankee Stadium and the absolute godawful defense that Bernie Williams played last year. The Yankee announcers were fawning all over Rowand. I agree with KW that there's not really a good match there. The only real tradeable talent the Yankees have is at 2nd Base (Cano) and starting pitching (Wang), both areas (Iguchi and the Big Four + B-Mac) that the Sox are strong in. That said, someone like Wang could be a marketable player if the Sox could get him in a Rowand deal (it might have to be Rowand + a prospect). Wang could be spun off for someone valuable in their own right.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 04:20 PM) Our of curiousity, how do Sweeneys numbers compare to Magglios in the minors? Didn't Maggs power come much later? Kind of the contrary. Maggs always had pretty good Isolated Power numbers (SLG-AVG), but his average was pretty low at a number of stops. Maggs had a fair number of doubles, which displayed his power.

QUOTE(Drew @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 04:25 AM) Technically, RIAA requires BMI and/or ASCAP licenses for DJs and Venues to play copyrighted music recordings for an audience, and a similarly comprehensive list of variables is used to arrive at the cost to obtain such a license. The RIAA doesn't require it, the Copyright Act does. ASCAP and BMI generally give out blanket licenses that you just sign up and pay for. It's a remarkably simple process. Those who make do without ASCAP/BMI licenses are at risk to get sued...and they often do. MLB would have its own ASCAP/BMI license to play music at stadiums. Getting a disc put together with the "Sox greatest hits" wouldn't be that hard. You would just need to know who owns the rights - the payment terms wouldn't be that onerous. Like I said, my best guess is that with publisher rights and record company rights, it would cost about $0.16-$0.20 per song per DVD.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 07:07 PM) That was a CD though IIRC? Right? Legal differences between audio and video.. Not when it comes to making CDs. Only when you are talking about performances. If you want to copy someone's recording of a song, you need permission. If you want to "play" (perform) someone's recording of a song, you don't need permission. There is no general performance right for sound recording copyright owners (the exception being on-line streaming and other digital performances).

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 02:36 PM) Exactly. The White Sox would have to pay royalties for everytime that montage is distributed, to each artist whose song is used in it. From what has been stated already it is not cost effective. Actually, deals like that are made all the time for relatively low cost. Think about $0.16-$0.20 per song per DVD. If the DVD goes for $40, the $1-$2 in music costs would be minimal.

QUOTE(hi8is @ Nov 4, 2005 -> 02:32 PM) what would you rather have... say: 1 percent of 50 million + 25 percent of 3 million or say: 1 percent of 75 million? --------- they both work out to equal the same amount of profit so.. entrupt as you will. Not quite the way the math works. It's more like this: Agent share of contract=5% (4% sticks out in my head, but I'll use 5) Agent share of endorsements=25% Paulie endorsements in Chicago = $7.5 million over 5 years ($1.5 m/year) Agent's share = $1.75 million Paulie contract with White Sox (hypothetical)= 5 years/$65 million Agent's share= $3.25 million Total value to Paulie= $72.5 million Total value to agent= $5 million Paulie endorsements in LA (hypothetical)= $2.5 million over 5 years ($.5 m/year) Agent's share= $0.625 million Paulie contract with LA (hypothetical) = 5 years/$70 million Agent's share=$3.5 million Total value to Paulie= $72.5 million Total value to Agent= $4.125 million "Gee Paulie, don't you just love Chicago...why move?"

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 4, 2005 -> 01:58 PM) Just because he never said that he didn't want to be here doesn't mean that he wants to stay in Chicago, if someone offers more years + a bit more cash he'll sign with them. It's as simple as that. Hopefully, the extra endorsement money available to him in Chicago - which won't be there in another city - will give the Sox a little boost. I saw an estimate of $2-$3 million in endorsements for Konerko (seems a bit high to me), which gooses the Sox's contract offer by a little bit. There's your hometown discount right there. By the way, agents get single-digit fees on contracts, but get like 25% on endorsements/appearances. Landis has a reason to keep him in Chicago.

QUOTE(Steff @ Nov 4, 2005 -> 12:49 PM) 7 days to complete a deal before he can hear what the Angels (and others) have to say... My bet would be if they come to any terms it will be closer to Soxfest if at all. I can't see Konerko signing with the Sox before he even gets a figure from another club, either. Gotta root for that Manny Ramirez-to-the-Angels trade, which would suck up whatever Arte Moreno wants to spend for 2006.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 3, 2005 -> 08:14 PM) Remember that 400lb. cheesecake? '06's big acquisition: 800lb. cheesecake! Mmmmm.....Eight Hundred Pound Cheesecake......Mmmmmm.

QUOTE(Steff @ Nov 3, 2005 -> 10:36 AM) Surgery. At this point, I'd rather have Hermanson out the entire 2006 season than to have him back on rehab in August or so. If he's out the entire season, the Sox get to collect the insurance on him. You have to be injured for 180 days to collect insurance on a player. That's if the Sox were able to get insurance on him. This is the same reason Albert Belle only "retired" in 2004 - the Orioles were collecting an insurance paycheck on him the last two years.