ptatc

QUOTE (striker @ Dec 29, 2016 -> 11:37 AM) Prospects already come with enough risk though, you don't want to add more. IMO. Especially since Lewis would be the #2 piece in the deal. If he was a throw in, then not as big of a deal. There shouldn't be an issue. Especially, once he goes through the physical. This type of injury will be very easy to assess if there is any long term issues.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 29, 2016 -> 11:09 AM) Also not build the smallest stadium in the NFL. Also maybe look at a site that doesnt have one way in and one way out.... So many issues with it. One way in and out? There are plenty of ways to get in and out of the stadium.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 29, 2016 -> 11:03 AM) Bears fans support a crappy team more than any other in Chicago IMO. Its too bad the owners were too stupid to build an actual stadium. I disagree. The stadium is great for fans, especially when compared to the old one. The sight lines are great. The food is good and very easy to get to. There are plenty of bathrooms.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 29, 2016 -> 10:48 AM) People will forget Narvaez was even a White Sox in 2 years. Doesn't mean he won't be a decent backup catcher.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 29, 2016 -> 09:30 AM) Christmas Eve had a lot to do with it as well. But if they were good, it would have been full. No doubt. I was out of town for Christmas and I couldn't give my tickets away to anyone.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 29, 2016 -> 08:53 AM) Except with that knee injury, you never know if he'll come back at 100%. Don't think they would trade for a player unless they've scoured all the doctor's reports and monitored in the spring. Possible, but unlikely. Plus projecting players from Mercer Univ. isn't a simple equation, either. It's fairly rare that a knee injury will not allow 100% recovery. The only one really is a significant hyaline cartilage injury.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 28, 2016 -> 08:47 PM) Todd Frazier being a decent player is not the point. Todd Frazier not being a solid upgrade from what any other team has at those positions, and Todd Frazier basically being paid his market value for a 1 year deal, is what makes Frazier worth very little in trade. this is why they should hold on to him for the deadline, when injuries can happen. He can be a decent replacement at 3B,1B or DH.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Dec 28, 2016 -> 01:31 PM) No it probably won't be. But many of these young building blocks will be on the team and many more will be joining the team with potential looking upward for 2019. 2018 won't be a playoff year but it will be fun to watch. Or it could be awful if the prospects don't pan out.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 28, 2016 -> 11:41 AM) This rebuild has hit cult-like proportions, and it has just begun. Oh, come on you knew it would. This is the same reason trump and rauner won elections. People just wanted something different. I'm not saying it is right or wrong. But you had to know that once the direction changed, the board would go nuts.

QUOTE (shakes @ Dec 28, 2016 -> 11:18 AM) And the Sox have averaged 72 wins the last four years. Honestly, what is your point besides whining? If this rebuild would've started three years ago like it should have they could already be in that window of contention. Instead we got to try and count on players like Matt Latos, Jimmy Rollins, JB Shuck, Jacob Turner, Dioner Navarro, Matt Albers, Kyle Drabek, Gordon Beckham, Hector Noesi, Adam Laroche, John Danks, Jordan Danks, Scott Carroll, Gordon Beckham, Ronald Belisario, Andre Rienzo, Dylan Axelrod, Blake Tekotte's of the world to try and win. That was a fun time as a fan. all teams will have some players like that as no team will have all top ranked players. The question is; how many of them are on the team at the same time.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Dec 28, 2016 -> 11:11 AM) I still think the Pirates get it done with a Meadows + Bell/Keller/Glasnow + a low level arm or two package. If the Sox want Bell they'd probably have to throw Frazier into the deal, but that also probably adds a better of cadre of prospects after the two headliners. Pirates have tanked the market for McCutchen by being so desperate to sell him that its about time for them to realize they never should've shopped him to begin with. Pirates have two years of prime-time baseball and with some favorable contracts long-term and a farm system that still has some muscle with a strong org to recoup what was dealt in the next couple seasons. Huntington is a good GM and I'm sure they like him, he can convince Nutting to expand the payroll a little bit to add a big piece. They could but they won't trade Meadows as he will replace McCutchen when he leaves whether it's by trade or by FA as it's sure that they aren't going to re-sign him.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Dec 28, 2016 -> 10:24 AM) Of course it's tied to winning. See, this is the problem with a team like the Sox that rarely wins - fans start rationalizing away the emphasis on winning. How much White Sox baseball have you "enjoyed" watching these past four years, when winning has been in such short supply? The long-term hope on this rebuild is that for the first time in this team's long history, some sustained "winning" will begin to happen, such that comments about enjoying baseball without the need for winning go away. To each his own. I can enjoy baseball for baseball. I'm the guy that stays until the end of the game regardless of the score. I've enjoyed going to baseball games the last four years. It's rare that I don't enjoy a baseball game. When i don't it's usually bad weather. My enjoyment of the game isn't tied to the Sox winning. The exception probably would've been the World Series game i went to, but since they won, it isn't an issue. I see this as more of a problem with people who can only get enjoyment from the game when their team wins. They aren't really baseball fans just more of a fan of winning. Which again is everyone's right but i just don't get it.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Dec 28, 2016 -> 10:12 AM) Got it. Was actually just curious. I was curious too. I was wonder from the comments on the board how many people are baseball fans or just fans of winning sports teams. not that either is right or wrong. Everyone has a right to be whatever type of sports fan they want to be.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Dec 28, 2016 -> 09:58 AM) So how does your enjoyment of watching a baseball game change with this Sox team versus past? It is just seeing players like Sale, Eaton or Q? Doesn't change at all for me. I really don't get tied to players. I've been going to Sox games since the late 70's. I got season tickets (weekend) in the early 2000's when I could afford them. I will continue to go while players come and go until I retire to Colorado when i will probably get rockies tickets. It's obviously fun to watch them win but I will go regardless as I enjoy baseball games.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Dec 28, 2016 -> 09:40 AM) But the thing is there is almost nothing they could do this offseason to win this year. They just don't have the resources to sign someone to a huge deal nor do they have the prospects to make such a move. It would be piecemeal additions, which has consistently failed over and over for this organization. This still has nothing to do with enjoying a baseball game unless your enjoyment is tied to winning.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Dec 28, 2016 -> 09:36 AM) Yes, if the losing is purposeful. Now that line is sometimes difficult to see. But clearly since 2009, the Sox were trying to win and losing. This year (and the next), it is clear the Sox are trying to lose. "Mired in mediocrity" is the worst position to be in, IMO. I guess i can see that. But again your enjoyment is tied to eventual winning. i enjoy going to watch baseball.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Dec 28, 2016 -> 09:27 AM) I disagree. If you aren't a playoff contender, purposeful losing is the best route. this goes back to my constant discussion of "are you a baseball fan." Or are you a fan of winning? Can you enjoy a baseball game if your team loses?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 09:47 AM) What is the insurance policy if Q goes to the WBC or into the regular season with the Sox and gets hurt or suffers a labrum/Johan Santana injury? He should be valued at $100-125 million to the franchise, at least. If not $150 million. Wonder the cost for that amount of risk. 35-40% on the dollar? Teams insure contracts not the player. The type of policy you are describing is what the player takes out on themselves.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Dec 23, 2016 -> 11:32 PM) I never pictured Soxtalk as a big circle of dudes getting excited around a giant Sox logo painted on the floor. Spirit, mind & now body Jerksticks. Forgive my halfassedness these years Is there beer? I'm in.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 23, 2016 -> 03:25 PM) I understand that but the owner got into it with a fan just in the past week because the fan said he was more concerned about the bottom line than winning. Adding a $6 or $7 million salary is hardly a franchise killer. If they have to trade the face of their franchise to add a guy who is paid like a 4th or 5th starter, they aren't committed to winning. Once this window closes, they might regret that. I'm not disageeing with your point. Im just saying that it's not every owner wants to sink everything he or they have into the team. Maybe he's got a 1mil a month alimony payment. Who knows but they aren't in it to go broke. The owner sets the budget they are comfotable with and the GM needs to work within it. If it's not enough to win, then they need to find another way. This could be it for the pirates. McCutchen wasn't putting them over the top so they are trading him and the salary for other pieces. They may also know something about him that others don't

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 23, 2016 -> 02:58 PM) I just think operating like they are operating isn't going to lead to wins. It's as half assed as anything the White Sox have done. Most teams have a budget set by the owner or ownership group. The GM can only work with the resources given.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 23, 2016 -> 02:52 PM) Is Meadows really ready? I just think if your Pittsburgh, your chances to win have been so few and far between, risking losing $6 or $7 million on a season (assuming right now they are OK financially at break even) is a small price to pay to take your shot. You never really know when you might have one again. I agree. i'm just saying that appears to be the way the pirates are going.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 23, 2016 -> 02:44 PM) Yeah, that seems truly harsh. THey also just signed Nova, who is about 8 million, so 14 million in two days. So this goes back to the "who is worth more." It looks like they made those moves with the plan of trading McCutchen. Would you rather have: Hudson Nova Quintana Meadows in CF or McCutchen

QUOTE (Soxnfins @ Dec 23, 2016 -> 01:22 PM) Have to pay to play. Remember when Aaron Poreda was supposed to be a big part of our MLB team? We showcased him just to deal for Peavy. Astros could have just showcased Musgrove and or Bregman and we may be forcing their hand. Musgrove moreso than Bregman. Have to pay to play is correct. That's why a deal won't get done unless the Sox back off those two. I don't think Poreda ever showed the success that these two have anyway.

QUOTE (Soxnfins @ Dec 23, 2016 -> 01:14 PM) This could all be a ploy for the Astros to include Bregman and or Musgrove. Those are both players Houston is counting on for this year. They will not weaken the MLB team when they are trying to contend.