ptatc

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 03:39 PM) I'm sorry, but this is ignorant. Are there scary people out there...? Absolutely. But, I can't worry about that every second of every day that my children are at school. I pay my taxes in Oak Park (hi Rock!) and I can not only see where those dollars go, they are tangible. Whether it's the Park District, streets and san, or the schools. We moved here because of the schools. We moved here because we can walk to all three. But most importantly, we chose to forge good relationships with the day care provider/nanny/head mistress/principal/teachers of every place they've been. We still see our nanny. We still see our in-home day care provider. We still see our Montessori head mistress and teacher. We email regularly with both of my son's teachers (Boy #1 is related to his class. Boy #2 has a sensory processing disorder, so we email/talk to his teacher more often). It's just like our parents said to us when we were younger, you take out what you put in. We are in a time now when, even if we are in a good district, we as parents make more time to help with our kids education. The American Dream, at least the way I interpret it is: my kids will do better than me and I will do whatever it takes to get them there. This will be changing soon with the proposed changes to the school funding system. Your taxes will no longer be going to your schools. Most of it will be going to schools outside of your district.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 11:41 AM) Its a very careful balance between parental involvement and detrimental helicopter parents though. You have to make sure you are not the parent who is blaming the teacher for your child's issues in the classroom. Too many parents nowadays fall into that category. No doubt. By involved parents the studies cite, making sure students do homework, being at kids sporting events/extracurricular activities, booster clubs etc. The negatives are blaming the institution and punishing kids for bad grades. It's the positive involvement that is key.

Pumped to see Star Wars Thursday and head to Colorado for skiing Friday

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 14, 2015 -> 10:18 AM) The religious part of this equation I could live without. I don't believe there is a pre-requisite to have religion involved in any way in a quality education. Are there overlapping values that both share? Of course. Research has shown that the best schools and the best education come from the involvement of the parents and how involved the child is in the education. The religious part is just the by product of this. It's not the teaching of religon that matters it's just that this type of parent and student is more engaged. This is the type of school you look for. One that gets the parents and students more involved.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 08:47 AM) I wish this level of outrage for cheaters who lie to try to cover their tracks existed in football. The NFL is a league founded by bookies looking for a way to make money. It's a league that owes the interest in it to gambling including vegas and fantasy football. They will never by that tough on these types of issues.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Dec 14, 2015 -> 07:23 PM) I'd like a backup plan just in case Danks or EJ completely fall apart, but the top 3 is just about as solid as it gets. Not to mention that Fulmer is waiting in the wings if they need him. Fulmer is not as advanced as Rodon was. I don't think he will be called up except for a cup during September.

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Dec 12, 2015 -> 05:20 PM) I miss Murph on the Score, but he can be a loon. Not the aquatic bird. I agree. He was such a Cubs homer it was funny. He actually talked sports and games. He wasn't trying to make sports radio more than what it is.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 11:48 AM) If he is cleared to play, than I think it would be awesome for him to get out their just a bit. My presumption is with other injury issues on the club, they might not have the option to be able to use a roster spot on a limited White (as we are already so thin at WR). I presume White would not be a primary option and instead would be focused on certain routes and would get limited playing time (really more of a get your feet wet experience than anything else). This is a misconception when it comes to terminology. Just because he is cleared to play does not mean he is in football shape. He may be healthy from the injury however if he is not in shape to play he could become fatigued and possibly injure something else. Cleared to play and ready to play are 2 very different things.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 12, 2015 -> 01:02 PM) The Sox have made a few trades that, in my mind, were a little strange...essentially low ceiling starter prospects for minor league relief pitchers. Generally you have a reasonable chance of turning some of these minor league starters into relievers so I'm not sure what the point was. Still, they really haven't traded anyone that figured to be in the rotation. They may have to sign a FA starter next year...so be it. Honestly, had the Sox traded Q for 2 young position players who could start, they would almost be in a position where they could contend with 2 signings - a)a pitcher to replace Q and b)a hitter. Because the Sox don't want to trade any good players or sell high, they could trade their prospects..but this would also require at least supplemental FAs AND the whole scheme would be on a tight 2 year window with zero room for error...kind of what the Sox have been doing for 7 years. The sox minor league system seems to do pretty well with pitchers. If they trade one away for a different one, I'll trust they know the strength and weaknesses of each and that they'll hit more than they miss. Hitters on the other hand, I wouldn't trust their evaluation and much.

QUOTE (beautox @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 09:03 PM) McMahon is on the same timeline as Michalczewski. The sox will be using Lawrie regardless of production as two years to evaluate Trey and hopefully there is something there. As others have said McMahon can always be moved off 3B if they need to make room for his bat. This is the exact scenario Hahn discussed on MLB the other day. He mentioned if Lawrie stays long term he can switch to 2B.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 03:34 PM) Tell you what, let's turn this mess around, stop trying to "miraculously rescue the franchise with a miracle playoff run", build a solid foundation that can actually make the playoffs a couple years in a row, do that, and if there's no attendance pulse, I promise to apologize? No this point I agree with. I would prefer the team just cincentrate on building a winning team. Im just saying that I dont think that is rnough to bting fans to the ballpark. Its perfectly fine with me as I go whether they are winning or losing. However when they win I get to go to playoff games. I have season tickets to the bears and sox. I really like going to playoff games. Thry just havent happened much lately. Im not arguing that it isnt the right thing to do. Im just saying I disagree with people who say that efen regular playoff runs will consistently increase attendance to a great extent, it will some.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 03:20 PM) I could see the Sox moving. But I ALSO could see the team staying. Are Jerry's relatives and the investors going to sell the team when he dies or keep it? In a city as big as Chicago, are there rumors of any local zillionaires wanting to buy and keep the team in Chicago? If the Reinsdorfs and the investors keep the team forever, ugh. I could see it moving or continuing to flounder. Disagree. Think back to 2005. The White Sox had done it. World Series. The Sox were the toast of the town. The Cubs franchise sucked. Oh yes they were still the Cubs and all the sellouts and the darlings of the baseball world. But they were truly second fiddle. The Sox COMPLETELY and utterly blew it. Almost instantly the team began its downward trend. Now finally the last 3 years the team has sucked. But after 05 the Sox had their chance to be THE team in town for a long time. They only have themselves to blame. I dont know if the Central Division teams went after them, but the Sox have one of the worst organizations in the Central now. Very sad. It can change again, but no question the Sox had it all going in 05 and blew it! You are just proving my point. Only world series winning will bring fans in.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 03:00 PM) Last year they spent $128 million across 4 players. One of their biggest offseasons in franchise history. As a comparison, the f***ing Diamondbacks just spent $206.5 million on 1 player. Not saying that model is beneficial to building a winner, but the Sox hardly spend big in FA. They are always going for the lower tier guys. Abreu is the largest contract in franchise history at $68 million. Great gamble by the organization, but the Sox are 1 of, what, 8 teams that have never had a contract over $100 million? Over $70 million for that matter? They haven't gone over their J2 allotment yet to replenish an otherwise mediocre farm system that was greatly in need of a talent infusion. Neighborhood has a lot to do with bringing in money for a team, whether you choose to admit that or not is completely up to you. I like Bridgeport, but again, to a casual fan, what is there that would make you want to go to a game? Not everyone is a rabid baseball fan. I dont need them to compete with the Cubs, that really isn't feasible. I think it's a lazy narrative to say that Sox fans just make excuses though. People want to see postseasons, the Sox havent delivered on that. Interest will diminish when you arent ever playing in October. How does a neighborhood bring money in for the team? It's he other way around. I dont think people go to the cubby bear and decide hey guess what there is a baseball park next door lets go. Even if they did that is a small percentage of the group. Fans go there for the game but hang around before or after. So what your saying about free agency is that if you arent one of the top spenders it doesn't matter. If pe ople want to see post seasons only, explain the attendance of the cubs and boston before 2004. Fans still went there. Im not denying that the attendance would go up if they made the playoffs. I just dont think it would consistently stay there like it does for many other teams who havent been to the post season regularly.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 02:39 PM) They'll never compete with the Cubs for fan interest, as the Cubs have the "outside of Chicago suburbs" market in hand. Sox just have to win enough to draw a decent enough amount to be able to have a solid payroll. Agreed.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 02:36 PM) They just have to win. The fans were excited for last year, but that excitement quickly vanished with the slow start. Don't get me wrong, I have season tickets and will always go to games. I've just become more pessimistic that just winning will ever bring the sox to the cubs levels for interest.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 02:34 PM) They were already let them going to move once, not sure why they would stop them now. That was to an untapped market in florida, which turned out to be a dry well as not many fans seem to go. Where is the untapped market now?

QUOTE (Dunt @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 02:25 PM) The casual fan only cares about getting to the playoffs and how you do once you get there. That's just the way it is. Even with the Cubs, fans didnt really start coming out of the woodwork until August/September last year. I go to roughly 25 games a year, it sucks to see the stadium empty, but let's not pretend like the Sox have given fans all that much reason to go to the ballpark. They dont spend in FA, they dont spend internationally, they only recently started investing more in scouting/drafting, the park (while a perfectly acceptable place to catch a game) is kinda boring, the neighborhood doesnt really have a draw...unless the Sox start seeing the playoffs more, dont expect the attendance situation to change. The sox spend in free agency. Robertson and cabrera just last year. Internationally they've done pretty well with Rameirez and abreu recently. I've never really understood what the neighborhood has to do with watching a baseball game. My point all along is that the attendance wont challenge the cubs even with more playoff appearances. I just see more excuses in general from sox fans to not go.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 02:14 PM) As long as Heyward is really good for 3 years, this is a pretty genius contract for Theo. He lets him walk when his guys get expensive and doesn't have to pay him for his over 30 years. The gamble is Heyward doesn't regress for 3 years. That seems like a decent bet. The downside is if he gets injured or falls apart, Theo has a problem. The other scenarios where it could a problem is an injury or if he truly enjoys the situation with chicago and maddon and decides he can live with 24 million per year.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 02:03 PM) Of course, 4 years from now there's going to be a lot more revenue growth, including new local TV deal/local TV channel for the Cubs. If you throw in "competitive every year led by that AS 3rd baseman" and maybe, god forbid, even a WS appearance (I will not type anything farther than that), the revenue growth on the north side could very easily compensate for that. Of course. Having more revenue changes the whole equation. I was referring to a scenario if the service time on the young players was at the arbitration or near free agency now instead of them being inexpensive.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 01:54 PM) This organization hasnt really given fans a reason to go if we are being serious. Theyve been to the playoffs 6 times since 1920. This is what I mean. In the late 90's and 2000s the sox had one of the highest winning percaentages in baseball. Fans didnt go because thet werent in the playoffs. If the sox consistently nake the playoffs, fans wont go because they didnt win the world series often enough. I hafe season tickets because I enjoy baseball, live closer to the ballpark and enjoy the ballpark.

QUOTE (AustinIllini @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 01:46 PM) This is wrong. There's no limit to how much money teams can spend, so the Heyward money is play money. It's all about player value. Teams can sign guys and sit them if they want. Yes, there is alimit to what the teams can spend. It's whatever the owner says. The GM needs to work within tnose constraints. Right niw the cubs have an advantage because most of their players are young and inexpensive. If this was 4 years fromnow and scwarber and bryant etc. ars in arbitration, you can bet the cubs wouldn't be in the position to make this deal.

QUOTE (Alexeihyeess @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 01:26 PM) It wouldn't really help. The Cubs lost on purpose for 5 years, let everyone know it, and the Sox still couldn't put even a dent in their dominance over the area. That's the problem with playing in a concrete sarcophagus (totally Sox fault) at 35th & Shields (not the Sox fault). The White Sox cling to the roughly 50/50 split they share with the Cubs in the city itself, but it's highly unlikely that survives a Cubs championship. You saw how the Blackhawks went from 2,000 people a night to over a million turning out for the parade? The Cubs will make that look like nothing. Chicago is a bandwagon sports town, and for the last 20 years it's been storing energy for a Cubs blowout that will boggle your mind. I dont think it's the ballpark. Its really a great place to watch a game. I think it's sox fans in general look for excuses not to go.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 01:25 PM) The Braves have averaged 2.7M fans over the past 25 years. The White Sox averaged 2M fans in that same span. From 05 to 08 (1 World Series and 1 Other PLayoff Performance) they averaged 2.6M. Within that range the Sox had a 90 win club that didn't make the playoffs and than a really disappointing 72 win club. In reality, the Sox are probably in a different place had the new wild card rules been in effect. I don't know exactly, but I think we'd have quite a few more appearances in that 2000 - 2009 window. I agree but I just don't see it being enough to get over the cubs, something atlanta doesnt need to deal with until college football begins.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 01:13 PM) If the White Sox went on a run, similar to that of the Angels in the 2000's, I think they would quickly grow in popularity / dominance. I don't think it takes sustained world series, it takes a world series along with sustained playoff contention (and playoff appearances). The Sox had shots to capitalize but could never actually put that consistent run of getting into the playoffs together. You look back over the Ken Williams era (as GM / president) and I can think of very few cases where the actual record was better than the perceived talent level. I can think of a hell of a lot of situations where the actual record was worse than the perceived talent level. Not sure what that means. Bad roster architect, bad luck, poor coaching or what, but that is a pretty long-term trend that has popped up during Kenny's time at the helm. Possible, but I don't think a long playoff run would do it. I think sox fans would become like the atlanta fans where playoff game wouldn't even sellout because they weren't satisfied with the lack of world series wins. Sox fans have a long history of looking for excuses to not support the team.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 01:08 PM) So guesses on where the outfielders go: Gordon: Cardinals Upton: Giants Davis (not an OF): Orioles Fowler: Mets Cespedes: Tigers I agree gordon to the cardinals is a forgone conclusion, although it may be upton. They will surelygivethe next highest contract ifthey were offering 200 million to heyward. I think what most people foget is that this is the backup plan for the cubs. This money was earmarked for price, who turned them down. They weren't going to offer 2 of these types of contracts.