chitownsportsfan

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 5, 2016 -> 06:34 PM) Where's the KW book on how he was behind the Eaton, Tim Anderson and Abreu moves? There's only one copy and it sits on JR's desk.

QUOTE (CWSpalehoseCWS @ Dec 5, 2016 -> 07:12 PM) We're talking about the White Sox. An organization whose last best home-grown position player has been Joe Crede. The organization is inept when it comes to developing hitters. Even Tim Anderson with how well he did last year has a massive issue with plate discipline that will more than likely cause him some headaches next year once teams figure out how to pitch to him. They need a can't miss position player. The fans know it and the front office knows it. I'm not saying Gioloto or Robles aren't great returns, but if the Shelby Miller's and Jeff Samardzija's of the world bring back Swanson and Russell, then it's not insane for the current asking price of Sale. We've never seen a pitcher of his caliber become available like this with his current contract. Well said. 100% agree. It's MLB ready 3-4 WAR stud (with room for superstar growth) or bust. Sox can't develop hitting prospects, we need to get someone that's already MLB established.

This franchise continues to think small. Penny smart pound foolish. Who gives a s*** if you improve the Cubs? Improve your own damn selves and give yourself the best hand possible in doing so. Eliminating a team that craves elite SP while also having a deep talented farm is dumb, who gives a s*** where they play.

I root for the laundry. Players come and go. If the return is good, I'll be happy. If it's not, I'll be mad. So "indifferent" is the vote for now.

The homoertotic nature of most locker rooms occasionally bleeds through with tales like this. These guys are so insecure at times.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 05:30 PM) Realistically six call ups for the month of September is the same as one call up for the entire year when it comes payroll. Interesting, wonder what the union would prefer or if they have no preference.

QUOTE (flavum @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 03:54 PM) All I want is consistency from Day 1 to Day 182. The 40-man expansion in September is completely outdated and terrible for the game for the Wildcard Era. I would expect that most of the established regulars in the union are opposed to it, might be an issue of division within the union. Are players on the 40 man considered part of the MLB union or not? If they are, they probably like the status quo. If they aren't, (well they don't get a vote so not really up to them) but they would prefer a 26th spot to get more guys into the union and more MLB paying full time gigs.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Nov 15, 2016 -> 01:30 AM) Trading two star players for prospects is a risky deal. The main thing is not to sell our players cheap just because someone thinks we are backed into a corner and must trade. You better get a haul and none of this settling for second best it's also risky holding on to a depreciating asset while you are most likely in no position to capitalize on it.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Nov 15, 2016 -> 12:28 AM) I would guess a top 100 prospect plus a lottery ticket? maybe if the sox are picking up some salary. Otherwise I'd say a B- position player type with a C or C+ minor league reliever.

QUOTE (Scoots @ Nov 12, 2016 -> 11:11 AM) Seriously...i can't believe some people are complaining about White Sox ticket prices...go get a Cubs package or some other big market team and see if you're still complaining about Sox ticket prices. They get what the market can bear. That they are raising prices this much after the last few years is just another data point that this ownership group is absolutely clueless. There's a reason the Cubs, Red Sox, Yankees etc charge what they do. Demand. I don't see much demand for Sox tickets, do you?

QUOTE (Scoots @ Nov 8, 2016 -> 09:14 PM) Wasn't Anderson's defense considered a liability when they called him up? If memory serves, then this statistic is quite the nice surprise. I for one think Anderson will be the Sox top all-around player for the next few years, regardless of the direction they decide to take. You know Anderson is sticking around, and he is something to get excited about. His range played much better in MLB than it did in the minors (speed of the game and all that) and he cleaned up most of the arm and footwork issues he had in the minors that led to a lot of errors. I don't think he'll ever be an elite defender, just doesn't have the quick rocket arm, but he can easily be a plus defender at SS for the next decade. That's pretty damn good for a guy that also projects as an asset with the bat. If he puts up 4 fWAR next season I'll be a very happy man.

And the world series just increased the value of the Cubs by the entire value of that hypothetical Trout contract. Yet you want to sit here and argue that the Cubs are going to be substantially hindered. Have fun I'll go hit a tennis ball against a wall, it's better for my health.

What evidence? Dude I don't know what else to say. It's like trying to describe color to a blind person. They won the world series and built the best team in MLB. How bad can the debt problem possibly be? It didn't stop them from paying the best GM in sports. It didn't stop them from hiring the best manager in MLB. It didn't stop them from signing Fowler. It didn't stop them from building one of the best International systems. Now that they have won the WS, now is the time to worry about the debt? Come. On. Man. I know you like to be a contrarian but there's nothing here to build any sort of argument on. If your argument is we don't know what the debt payments are then no ****.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 3, 2016 -> 05:11 PM) So you don't actually have real knowledge on the facts here, just what you think is happening? As always you refuse to consider the evidence we have in front of us. I don't need to shove my head up a bull's ass to get a good look at the T-Bone steak. I'll just take the well reviewed Butcher's word for it. The Cubs just won the world series with a fairly high payroll. Who in the right mind would even give a 2nd thought to the debt service? They are a money pinanta and the new TV deal coupled with their success is a mace being swung by Brock Lesnar.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2016 -> 05:05 PM) 2009 Yankees. The ya go. That is a different era of MLB baseball imo.

QUOTE (miracleon35th @ Nov 3, 2016 -> 05:00 PM) Should help to pay the $184 Million they owe Heyward. But Joe Ricketts family venture, aka, the Cubs, has hundreds of millions to throw around without any limit on their spending. Unless the league puts in a comprehensive revenue sharing agreement and an enforceable salary cap, there will only be few teams like the Cubs that can afford to compete every year. Good one. Last time I checked the Indians and Royals have been in three straight world series. I guess if you literally mean EVERY year then sure, there's only a few clubs (Sawx, Dodgers, Yankees, Cubs) that could maintain a massive 200 million payroll from a team laden with star vets. But when is the last time a team laden with star veterans (and imported, high price tag FA) won the world series? It's all about arb-eligible youth and locking your home grown talent up to team friendly deals early so you avoid the perils of FA. Maybe you could point to the '13 Red Sox.

I gotta agree with Captain here. From everything I've read the payroll concerns on the N. Side have been vastly over stated and probably emerged mostly out of the wake of the Wilbon's exposure in the Maddon ponzi scheme. Is Rickets the most liquid and well financed owner in MLB? Nah, probably not even close. But the asset he's sitting on just probably increased it's value by 15-30%. If he wants to leverage that into a higher payroll I'd imagine he'll find a way. It didn't stop them from quickly building the best team in MLB so how the hell is it an issue going forward now that Rickets just turned the Cubs into a money tree? If they weren't before, they sure as s*** are now.

Well the Cubs' franchise valuation probably just went through the roof. Any sort of debt the Ricketts had to incur to purchase the majority stake is small potatoes at this point. Yea it might weigh them down as far as capping future payrolls but I have to think given the absolute bonanza this will be for the Cub's overall brand the additional revenue streams will largely offset or overcome that. There's no world in which this is good for the Sox, short or long term. Probably 80% of the youth in Chicago, south side, north side or upside down are now burgeoning Cubs fans. The impact is going to be felt for decades.

short answer: we're boned.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 1, 2016 -> 10:17 PM) That was probably accommodated for and we just didn't know it.

I'm not from Chicago but I do think you're spot on with your analysis about no "Chicago fans". That's like asking a Jets fan to root for the Giants in the super bowl. Good luck.

A club capable of winning consistently on the field, or at least fielding a competitive product wouldn't make this decision. It's that simple. This decision part and parcel of the awful leadership at the top. That's why when you say "oh just field a winner and nobody will care about the logo" isn't so simple. People need to be replaced.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 1, 2016 -> 02:27 PM) Yes old news. Sorry it wasn't covered in this month's AARP.

"old news" http://deadspin.com/white-sox-didnt-want-g...stad-1788440027

"old news" right Dick? http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsst...teed_rate_field