ptatc

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 09:49 PM) Purely done for 40 man purposes Yeah. I guess this is just another example of "Why bother with anything this season." They are going very conservative with the injuries this year. Normally, the sox have their injured player return earlier than the norm. Not this year.

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 09:59 PM) Wouldn't it be retroactive though It would be for the sake of the DL time. I guess it depends on how far back it goes. For the injury, once he is out of the boot it shouldn't be more than 3 weeks or so. So does the DL time go back 40 days?

QUOTE (Sleepy Harold @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 07:37 PM) James Fegan‏ @JRFegan 27m27 minutes ago More Charlie Tilson is going to the 60-day DL to clear a 40-man spot. But Hahn says that is not indicative of any change in his recovery timeline Well that's not correct. If he's out of the boot, it doesn't take another month to get ready. He's one that i thought they would want to really see this year.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 04:45 PM) There was a point in the 1970's (and Charlie O'Finely) where the A's literally were trying to sell their best players off to the highest bidder. IIRC, the Yankees were right the front of the line before MLB finally stepped in. At that point, they put some restrictions on cash deals which didn't exist before. I want to say it was in reaction to free agency? That's seems familiar. I think you're right.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 04:09 PM) He'd better hope it isn't serious. That is the same injury that Danks had. It would really suck for him to punt away nine figures because he took a risk. Did Danks have an AC sprain? I know the surgery was for a loose joint capsule.

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 04:28 PM) I don't understand why that behavior is bad though. It's no different than NBA teams trading for trade exceptions so that they can accept a more expensive player in the future. The receiving team gets something they can use (cash) the seller gives something valuable (allotted space) That said, I doubt a cash trade would be a likely scenario. A player with a small likelihood to succeed is probably still more valuable to a team than 300k. I think it's because you're getting back to the "he with the most money wins." A team could just go around and buy everyone's slot space. All of these rules are to prevent that scenario. Assets need to be traded not money.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 03:54 PM) Madison Bumgarner injures his left shoulder in dirt biking accident, goes on DL. http://www.sfchronicle.com/giants/article/...twitter-premium Ouch, AC sprain. Not good for the pitching shoulder.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 01:36 PM) This is true. Those teams can trade all of their slots. These would be teams that had to pay the penalty for the previous year, correct?

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 11:34 AM) IF the Sox scouts think he's a top 25 prospect in the game, I think they need to be willing to go deep into their pockets to get him signed. With the complete lack of obvious impact position talent in the minors after Moncada and (hopefully) Collins, getting a top 25 prospect without giving anything up would be a huge addition to the system. If the Sox scouts love Robert, I'll be very disappointed if the Sox come in second. Absolutely. However, with the wide difference of opinions of the "experts" I don't think this is a given.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 11:25 AM) Some have said Robert is a top 25 prospect the moment he signs somewhere. So I'd sign him in a heartbeat if I was Reinsdorf. Back to the risk discussion, others have said they don't like him as a prospect. So it's up to the evaluation of the Sox scouts to determine if he is worth that amount if the price escalates.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 11:18 AM) Yes all of the money past the $1 million would be taxed. Got it. That's how the numbers made sense but I wasn't sure. So if they offer him 20 million it turns into a 39 million cost.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 11:16 AM) Pitch f/x says he's not throwing more pitches in the zone, but instead he's almost doubled the swings on pitches outside the zone. However his velocity is up a couple ticks and he's doubled his swinging strike rate, so this is definitely an encouraging start. Is this compared to his minor or MLB numbers from previous years?

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 11:08 AM) We actually signed 20 players, most for basically nothing. Southsidesox says we have $1 million left. So, if we offer 10 million (nice round numbers) we pay effectively $19mill. Negligible, I think the total spend for FA classes is more important. When you are already paying $10 mill in tax another $30 mill can feel worse. If they have 1 million left, is there the 100% tax of all money after the 1 million? I can't find a good resource on the current system. Most of them have an analysis of the new system.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 10:55 AM) I'm all for rallies, and really don't think this guy should have been hit on the head with a u-lock. But, since you justified another person protesting being sucker punched and said the reason she was there was to fight, it's not like this guy didn't know there would be opposition at the rally, so using your logic, he was there for a fight, and he got one, so no problem. A victim is a victim. There is no difference between this guy and the woman. What happened to both was criminal, and both people who committed these crimes should do some serious time. This isn't necessarily true. If they both showed up with weapons and were ready to use them neither is a victim. Rallies are good but not when people show up armed and ready to start the violence.

QUOTE (Sleepy Harold @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 10:41 AM) Jesse Sanchez Article, no real new info, same interested teams covered, but hey it's new Back on topic......How much could the Sox offer without going into the penalty?

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 10:27 AM) Here's what I think If the CLE takes Garrett and San Fran (or whomever) takes Thomas: - Bears take a QB If Cle takes Garrett and San Fran takes Fournette or something silly: - Bears take Thomas - Bears trade into late first and get Mahomes/Kizer. But I think they'll end up with a QB at 3. This would be ideal in my world.

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 10:24 AM) Wasn't a warning of any sort, just deep, personal dissatisfaction. I was hoping you all wanted to continue to read my different iterations of why the market will not be as rich as we think and why the white sox will sign. I still had many more ways to write basically the same thing. Personally, I agree and was trying to justify the reasons.

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 10:16 AM) And the thread takes the inevitable turn to Jerry Reinsdorf culture of losing pissing match. Of course. Sorry I took the bait again. I will stop now.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 10:11 AM) The better question is how many of those contracts led the signing team to more trips to and success in the postseason? Because if you haven't noticed, this team is on its way to its ninth year since it made the playoffs, and will only have made it there (barely) once in the 12 years since 2005. So my point is, the strategy to avoid signing any contracts greater than $68 million, unlike 27 of the other MLB ball clubs have, has not resulted in success. And I would submit it's one of many reasons why the culture of losing continues to prevail at 35th and Shields. how many of the other 27 clubs have gone 9 years since making the playoffs as well? How many have not won a World Series since 2005? I guess you would include all of them in the culture of losing as well.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 10:12 AM) Despite what most are saying now, if the Bears pass at #3 on any QB that becomes a star, they are going to get trashed big time. Of course they will. That's the job of the fans. For me, it will just depend on the performance of the player they do pick.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 10:12 AM) I don't think those guys are future starters though. If they miss on Watson/Kizer/Trubisky/Mahomes I hope they ignore the position personally. Just depends on what they think of them. I've heard different reports that each of them could be NFL starters.

QUOTE (winninguglyin83 @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 10:08 AM) Thanks for doing this. Greatly enjoyed. +1

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 09:45 AM) All 4 will likely be gone by #36 in my opinion. I'd love to trade back but I'm not sure anyone wants the #3 pick. This is always the issue. Hopefully a team gets nervous. If the Bears want to pick one in the 2nd, I think Dobbs or Peterman will be there.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 10:03 AM) Thank the lord those didn't work out. No kidding. That Gordon one looks bad so far.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Apr 18, 2017 -> 01:15 PM) So do I. Too much smoke. Leming has thought so all along. Greg Gabriel, Moon Mullin, and Jim Miller all have them taking DeShaun Watson at #3. I think they either trade down and take one later or take one in the second round. I don't see them taking a QB at #3.