Balta1701

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 25, 2016 -> 03:20 PM) What were the better upgrades available, and don't say Cespedes because they tried. They offered Cespedes 5/$150 and he turned it down for less money per year and fewer years?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 25, 2016 -> 02:25 PM) I would be one of the first to say in the real world results trump effort. We like to tell our kids that they go hand in hand, and often they do. Sometimes they do not. They are trying to not be mediocre. They haven't done a good job of it. Moving on from KW and RH makes a lot of sense, but it doesn't appear like that is in the cards at least for another year. They are trying to do so up to a given point. They have a line - having their buddies in the front office, turning a consistent profit - that they will not cross.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 25, 2016 -> 02:11 PM) I agree someone else at this point should probably be making baseball decisions, but the amount of changes made in recent years indicates they are not tolerating mediocrity. They are trying to overcome it. If they were tolerating it, they would keep the same players around year after year. They're unwilling to tolerate it from the players, but they're perfectly ok with it from management as long as they make an enthusiastic presentation at the end of the year explaining why it wasn't their fault.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2016 -> 10:25 AM) The Sox are getting $6.4 million out of this. THAT is what is important here. The name is secondary. Wait, wasn't it stated earlier that the naming rights funds don't go to the Sox they go to the state?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2016 -> 10:00 AM) And this is why the Sox get the Guaranteed Rate deal, while the Cubs will be getting a new network deal. Worth considering perhaps - the "bang for the buck" for a company that isn't well known a-la "Guaranteed Rate" in sponsoring a stadium name is likely much higher than that a well known company (i.e. United) gets out of sponsoring a stadium. Guaranteed Rate has probably gotten their entire contract's worth of advertising value in the last 24 hours - I can't say I'd ever heard of them before this thread.

If they don't give Fulmer a number of big league starts in September I could see them sending him to get his innings up.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 25, 2016 -> 08:30 AM) No such thing as bad pub. There are people that are so up in arms about this name change, yet wouldn't mind if a wife beater was on the roster if it helped the team win. Let Cubs fans make fun of the name, and least we aren't cheering for wife beaters.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 25, 2016 -> 09:12 AM) No. I actually am totally against publicly funded stadiums. I'm just showing that this deal is a positive for taxpayers of IL. That is what really matters. The state will get more money. I don't know if Guaranteed Rate is a good company or not, I would imagine they were vetted, but we can find lawsuits and huge fines with any large company. If JP Morgan Chase bought the rights would anyone complain? They have been fined billions of dollars. I'd probably call it foreclosure fraud field.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 24, 2016 -> 07:08 PM) Over/under on Shields runs allowed tonight? I'll say +/- 5.5 and go with the over. Winning this series handily would make it nearly impossible for the White Sox to wind up with a protected pick (if there is such a thing next year after CBA negotiations). Ergo, Shields having a strong start slightly hurts the White Sox, long term, if you consider them to be out of the race this year. 1 run, 7.1 innings. Followed by an implosion next time out just to make it clear.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Aug 24, 2016 -> 06:45 PM) Why do people keep saying guaranteed rate? I would not have even thought of that if not posted here. It's completely unnecessary, unfunny, kind of stupid. It's an obvious bit of word play. You're right on the description, but it's literally changing one letter. People are going to be dropping that phrase as an obvious negative commentary throughout this agreement. We will be seeing that in game threads in 2025. Hell, I bet you could search the phrase on twitter right now and find hundreds of posts from today that came up with that.

I'm not sure whether I regret googling the company or not. 10th image was them celebrating the Cubs...then I got into the naked Ty Penningtons.

Caption: “Celebrating Cubs Opening Day on our roof.” Courtesy: Guaranteed Rate http://reviews.greatplacetowork.com/guaranteed-rate

That totally sounds like a name I'd expect for a minor league stadium.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Aug 24, 2016 -> 02:23 PM) At prices that high, it's amazing some other competitor hasn't swooped in to make a generic brand and completely cut the legs out from under Mylan. I believe I've read that this one it is specifically patents on the delivery system that make it difficult for generic competition, not the drug itself.

Want to read the exact same story about insulin?

People were talking about him as a return for Quintana last year. That's still on the table right?

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Aug 21, 2016 -> 07:36 PM) I agree Rodon does not get you a haul like Q does. But Rodon is still a valuable trade chip in that he is a #1 pick, under 25, and a lefty with close to 275 innings by next winter. He may need another piece with him but I think he could bring back a couple of young players in return. Again, I am working off the premise Sale is not tradeable. If you're trading Rodon and holding onto Sale, I don't think you look for young players in return. You look for guys who make your team better right now and let the team acquiring Rodon be the team looking to develop the young starter. Trading Rodon is a "win now" move.

Gomez expected to sign with the Rangers.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Aug 20, 2016 -> 03:11 PM) Sure thing. But if Peavy hadn't ripped his back muscle off his spine and TCQ actually recovered from punching a locker I have no doubt there would have been more playoff appearances. If Adam Dunn wasn't a pile of horsemeat, there would have been some more playoffs. I'm not saying the FO is perfect but I think people need to cut them some slack when they point their finger clammoring like an old drunk, "16 years, 2 playoffs!" That's insane. The team looked darn good every year on paper from 2001-2013. Many devastating injuries to key personnel. It's been 3 years since they decided to flip cores & go young, cut them some slack. Almost competed during the process too. If injuries are such a regular problem...then your organization needs to start worrying about how much depth it has at important positions before the season starts. The Cubs this year lost one of their slugging corner OFs the first week of the season and their big money corner OF has been all but worthless with the bat. They lost their starting CF for a month, and now they've lost one of their better relievers and a starter to the DL. Yet they're still on pace for 100+ wins. They built a strong franchise and therefore have depth to absorb those hits. If your team is only a good one if nothing goes wrong...your team is not a good one. And at some point I have to point out that the White Sox are typically among the healthiest teams in the league, so that's really a particularly weak excuse for this franchise.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Aug 20, 2016 -> 02:29 PM) Wow. Bills released Karlos Williams after one season. Averaged 5.6 yards per carry as a rookie. Supposedly was out of shape this year. I wonder if the Bears would take a flyer. Very good young RB. Didn't he just get a drug suspension too?

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Aug 19, 2016 -> 10:06 PM) 8 years? What are you talking about? Most of those years had badass rosters that looked competitve on paper. "Hey Paulie, screw your prime and your last good years, we're going to get some prospects. Piss off you old goateed-sometimes fool." GMAB Maybe, just maybe, if the White Sox constantly have rosters that "look good on paper" and none of those teams made the playoffs and most weren't close...it's time to reevaluate how you're judging that the team looks good on paper, because the method you're using to judge that is failing.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Aug 20, 2016 -> 12:28 PM) I for one am excited for 2017 Lawrie. We've seen his potential, he's better at taking walks, and I think we could see a 25-homer season from him if he stays healthy He's had 1 year in his career where he has stayed fully healthy/played >130 games, and every year of his career except his brief rookie stint he's had an OPS between .706 and .729. His walk rate has gone up this year, but so has his K-rate. He looks like one remarkably consistent, average 2b who gets hurt for a stint each year.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 19, 2016 -> 10:42 AM) Filibuster? And yeah, it had to be made because the White Sox essentially gave up on him...that was pretty obvious. Just like they did with Micah Johnson after hyping him heavily for two plus years. One thing I'm finding interesting - every one that the White Sox have pushed aggressively up to the big leagues, to the point where I was wondering "why are they doing this" over the past few years was traded that offseason. Semien, Johnson, Montas, Bassitt, Thompson, going back farther even Santiago. Fulmer's now the next guy on that list. And if they're going to do another "all-in" trade this offseason, I'm not sure who else they have as trade ammunition.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 19, 2016 -> 10:23 AM) So has Jose Abreu. Interesting. Although your math is off enough that I'm noting it, it's provocative to note that his error numbers have gone down at the same time as his total defense metrics gotten worse. Given the dropoff with the bat also, left wondering if maybe there isn't a more specific physical issue bothering him all year that he's just playing through.