Balta1701

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 09:14 AM) On the other side of the spectrum is Jeffrey Loria. He gets ripped for being a poor owner. Yet in Business 101, he gets an "A+" Well yeah, he took advantage of dumb politicians to line his own pocket. That's pretty much the only operational business model left in this country.

Five Reasons People Under 50 Are Already Tired of JFK Nostalgia

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 08:01 AM) I also thought they had Oswald hearing another gunshot just a couple seconds after his own, as he was starting to flee, as if they were trying to say that there was a second gunman, but not connected to Oswald in any way. "In the real world, we call this an echo."

“@CSNBullsInsider: Jimmy has a right-toe injury and his return is questionable, per Bulls PR.”

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 05:55 PM) If you are advocating throwing $10m around willy-nilly simply because your business is worth a lot, I'd say that you disagree with practically everyone on how to run a business. (There's a mortgage-backed security joke buried in here that I'm struggling to put together).

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 05:54 PM) How about if you use their revenues? We really have no idea how accurate Forbes is, but it has been SOP for the White Sox to say every dime that comes in goes out, then say they are at their budget limit, only to add payroll later. Maybe it is silly to base a teams' ability to add payroll based on their Forbes value, but it is equally as silly to base it on what the team is telling you. The one thing I will say is that the Forbes numbers have seemingly done a really good job over the last few years of predicting where the White Sox total payroll will wind up. When Forbes says they lose money, they cut back on payroll, when Forbes says they made money we see a payroll increase the next year. They've seemed to be good estimates of money balance to within $10 million or better.

George Zimmerman arrested again, this time allegedly pointed a shotgun at his girlfriend.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 03:05 PM) Mitchell yes, though supposedly his speed is back to normal now. De Aza I don't really know his injury history, don't recall off hand. De Aza completely destroyed one of his legs in 2009, thats' why he became available in the first place, his rehab took 2+ years.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 02:54 PM) How does any of that affect the chances of him being extended before the season ends? I'm trying to tell you it's not as easy as "well let's just sign him in a year", because he may not be available in a year. But you know what? If you have $100 million to spend on a 3b, I bet you that you'll be able to find a reasonable option.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 02:48 PM) I don't disagree, and it's not something you can fault Ventura for - was he really going to use platoons whereever the Sox had a weak hitter? The A's did platoon a lot, and it doesn't mean that Bob Melvin is some supergenius manager but that Billy Beane and company provided him the roster to use platoons like that. The concept behind that is depth is king. Get a bunch of players together who are all pretty good at hitting the opposite hand thrower and make sure you have a good defensive team and you can do a lot. Keppinger and Gillaspie should be a strict platoon next year and if it is, I bet the Sox get pretty solid production out of the 3B spot. If Jordan Danks is on the roster, he should play a bit more for Viciedo and Garcia against righties. Know your platoons though - De Aza is actually a better career hitter against lefties than he is righties (though that wasn't the case prior to this year as he had a great year against lefties and a poor year against righties). You take baby steps and you'll get there eventually. I'll give RV a pass on this one a bit. Even if he wanted to platoon people more, when Beckham and Viciedo went down early and Konerko was hurt/terrible the whole year, any plausible platoon setup sorta was forced into the starting lineup.

An Ohio Walmart holds a food-drive for its own employees and it's not an article from The Onion.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 01:21 PM) This is also true, though this can fluctuate a bit as well. What that tells me is..."If he can't hit while DHing...then the guys who want him dumped unceremoniously are right".

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 11:07 AM) It is worth mentioning that Dunn was still far, far more productive when he was actually on the field compared to DHing. At this point, it's pretty impossible to ignore. It's also worth noting that in the fangraphs world...the awfulness of his defense when he was at 1b overwhelmed the positive contribution he made with the bat by a whole lot.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 08:54 PM) The pitching could support a 90 win team. They just need to score some runs, somehow. And to remember how to catch the ball.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 01:25 AM) Why is it a forgone conclusion he will be an FA next year? Why can't the Padres or any other team sign him to an extension this season? Are you willing to pay fair market value for that to happen? Right now I'd guess that's 5/$75+ for him. A decent season and he could push $100 million. Are you willing to pay that for him? If so...why are you so desperate to have him in the fold for 2014 that you're willing to give up some of the cost-controlled talent the Sox do have to get him on the roster right now?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 07:38 PM) I'd be thrilled with that, but I don't anticipate that. Not sure I do either, but that's one of those things that would need to happen for this team to compete. If that isn't going to happen...then signing Konerko and aiming for the better draft pick makes more sense.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 07:31 PM) Well, you've got no Alex Rios and no catcher hitting 26 homers or whatever; other than that, yeah, it's pretty much the same I don't think it matters whether we think we're going to be competitive or not; Hahn and are Reinsdorf have both made it clear they aren't going to punt this season. They're going to try and make moves that are good both in the short and long term. At least for RF, we'd probably be hoping that the guy we acquired will out-produce Rios this year.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 06:55 PM) I never said 2012 was a fluke. 2013 collapse could be seen from miles away though. Yeah, when you predict failure every year eventually you're going to be right.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 06:58 PM) No one here has stated they wanted to trade for Headley on a 1 year deal. The underlying assumption has always been IF we could sign him to an extension. So you're basically arguing against something no one here has said. On top of that, all you seem to care about is surplus value and not actual production. Your ridiculous "5 year/$15M extension" argument demonstrates that clearly. We need good ball-players and to get those players we'll have to spend money and/or talent. Reed is a good, young closer, which is nice to have, but more of a final piece to the puzzle. For us to be a legitimate contender, we need to add several bats to our lineup in the near future. If we can trade a good, young closer for one of the better 3B in all of baseball that's a tremendous deal for us. There is such thing as positional scarcity and 3B happens to be one of the weakest positions in baseball right now. It also happens to be one weakest positions in our organization. But let's ignore those points, along with the significant production edge Headley provides over Reed, and only consider surplus value. The problem is that you think everything is going to turn around with our current players and that there will suddenly be a ton of Abreu-like deals out there for us. The reality is that some our likely just suck, our system is weak at the upper levels and that our cash isn't going to do us much good under the new CBA, especially if we're afraid to spend it on good players (like Headley in your case). Given that you think trading for Headley and then extending him is such a horrible idea, I'd love to hear your thoughts on how to rebuild this offense to the point where we can be legitimate contenders within a couple years. If Abreu, Viciedo, and Garcia disappoint/continue to disappoint then it won't matter whether we have Headley or not. Either we've already successfully added the key pieces to rebuild that offense or we're going to be starting from scratch. Headley could be a decent supplementary piece to pick up for a team ready to compete right now. However...spending $15 million a year for 5 years extending Headley after also giving up talent from the upper levels...which you admit are weak...is completely backwards. If we're willing to spend $15 million a year on a 3b upgrade...fine, let's sign Headley in a year when he's a free agent. Why do we need him so desperately for 2014 if we're going to have to pay fair market value to keep him afterwards? In the deal that was floated, we'd give up Reed and Semien for a guy that we could sign next year anyway. We'd be forced to sign him to a fair free agent deal because we couldn't afford to give up that much for him and let him walk. Why do we need him so desperately for 2014? We'd be giving up Reed, or Reed + Semien, to get Headley for 2014, when we could get him for the same dollar amount in 2015 while keeping both of those guys. If we were sitting there as an 85 win team and a weakness at 3b...fine, let's trade our closer and go for the final piece. You guys keep saying we need ballplayers, we need talent...why are you so interested in getting rid of talent?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 06:44 PM) Not even close. They've gone from an aging offensive core to having no offensive core. As usual, you've done nothing to explain how 2012 was the fluke and 2013 was not. You could darn well be right...if this team's focus and defense level is as bad as it was in 2013. IMO, aside from Konerko, that was the biggest difference between the 2 seasons; one year they actually wanted to be there, the next year they couldn't possibly have cared less.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 06:36 PM) Lol, this is a waste of time. Ok, you win. Headley sucks so much he's going to get a gigantic free agent deal in 12 months. Sounds good. I never f***ing said that. Pay some **** attention for once. It makes no sense for the White Sox to give up tons of talent for a guy 1 year from free agency unless they're going "all-in" this season. No sense whatsoever. To pretend it makes sense, you have to float a deal he wouldn't accept. I think that tells how poor a fit he is for the white sox right there.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 06:36 PM) Aging offensive core that had one last gasp. And now that we've replaced the key guy who underperformed from that group with a guy who could be a real stud, we're right back to that level, correct?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 06:30 PM) 99 losses last year was not a fluke. Were the 85 wins the previous year a fluke?

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 06:26 PM) your deal doesn't even have a modicum of realism in it. NEITHER DOES YOURS. Yet somehow you think that's a great reason why we should be willing to dump the talent we do have for him. You offer up that deal, he leaves as a free agent. Congrats. You have taken several guys under team control, turned it into a $10 million, 1 year contract for a team that is rebuilding and an early 2nd round pick.

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 03:00 PM) Does "if everything goes right" mean Beckham leads the league in batting. Flowers and Viciedo each hit 50 homers, DeAza steals 60 bases and Sale wins 20 games and doubles as the closer. Lets realistically hope that they go from 99 to 80 losses next year. That may reguire a lot of things to go right. This team was competitive in 2012 without insane things like that happening.