Balta1701

QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 29, 2016 -> 04:44 PM) BTW if this was any politico besides Hillary it'd be all over the news ... still. The irony of the timing and your lack of self awareness is amazing.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 29, 2016 -> 01:31 PM) I don't think Hillary handled that very well, BTW. That person paid to get in the event. Yes she was being rude, but Hillary kind of pulled rank on her. "Well if you let me talk ...." Talk about what? That person wanted her to answer her question. And she gets escorted out and if you watch, that person escorting her out was touching her shoulder. Don't touch me woulda been my response.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 29, 2016 -> 10:56 AM) So Louisville and Minnesota have sex scandals break in the same year. What two seemingly random and unconnected programs to have that happen to. Can someone add a link?

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Feb 29, 2016 -> 02:14 PM) I have a hard time feeling bad for a guy making $8M to play baseball for a year. I am surprised by the way Desmond went with this whole deal. I thought he'd accept to QO. I didn't think he'd accept an offer to play in the OF. It really cuts down on his value - his bat can make him one of the better all around SS in the league if he bounces back to his career norms. In the OF, its a different story. I too am a little shocked he couldn't find an everyday SS job. I am also shocked that the Sox weren't interested in the cost was only $6M more than Rollins. But someone (Merkin I believe) said that the Sox were never really interested in Desmond due to his defense. But on a one year deal, even with a team option for next year in case Anderson isn't ready in 2017, it made a lot of sense. But oh well, I am fine with where things are. I actually want to see Saladino out there at SS most days. Regarding the bolded, just to keep pointing this out: UZR in the 2015 season: Ian Desmond: -3.7 Jimmy Rollins: -6.8 Defensive runs saved: Ian Desmond: 1 Jimmy Rollins: -8 Yeah Rollins has been better in previous years but he's graded as a below average fielder 3 of the last 4 years, which isn't surprising for a SS in his late 30s. At the very least, if "due to his defense" is a reason not to be interested in Desmond, that reason should apply equally to Rollins.

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 28, 2016 -> 08:14 PM) If they fail again this year, there better be massive changes in this organization. I think you'll get a new manager. He's set up as the guy without a chair. But the front office did a good job!

Things I'm not used to saying: Thanks Purdue and Ohio State.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 27, 2016 -> 07:09 PM) Which is exactly why this team shouldn't go throwing money around, just because. Then they also shouldn't be trading for guys who are close to free agency.

So...just something I was pondering over last night. Let's just hypothetically say that Rollins were to win the SS position and let's focus on defense, position by position. OF - same as last year. 1b - same as last year 2b - Lawrie - he's an upgrade over Johnson but he's a downgrade compared to Sanchez. SS - Rollins - he was a downgrade defensively from Alexei in 2015, both UZR and DRS agree, and Alexei wasn't that great last year. 3b - Saladino was excellent there and Beckham was ok, Gillaspie was terrible. Frazier is an upgrade compared to the last 2 but a downgrade compared to Saladino. C - upgrade compared to both as long as they stay healthy. So overall compared to at least the 2nd half of last year, the defense around the infield is worse and the OF is the same. That's a pretty poor defensive lineup in the IF with no really strong anchor anywhere. It's better than what we started with in April/May of last year, but unless someone improves over last year, not by much.

QUOTE (JohnCangelosi @ Feb 27, 2016 -> 09:23 AM) I'm surprised that probably 80% of this board wants to throw Avi out with the bath water now, when he's only in his age 24-25 season. Guys like Carlos Gomez or Aaron Rowand come to mind as guys who didn't develop until age 26 or 27. I realize we have a limited time to contend here and we should be trying to win now, but still, maybe management is gambling he can have a rebound season and put up some decent numbers. There's no guarantee any of the FA or trade options left are going to produce more than Avi this year, I suspect. Just remember this though - it's the White Sox who keep making "all in" style bets, trading for guys who are free agents in either 1 or 2 years, and then relying on Avi. They're the one setting the clock on him. If he turns into Jose Bautista at age 27, but the White Sox keep betting he's a solid player when he's 24-25 when he can't be, the end result is several more lost seasons because of those bad bets. I'd have no problem with Avi Garcia starting in RF on a rebuilding team right now. He's exactly the kind of player a rebuilding team should look to start in their OF - talented, good work ethic, but needs a major overhaul to become a good player. If he busts, hey who cares, the team was rebuilding they'll look somewhere else.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Feb 27, 2016 -> 10:17 AM) Right, but that he has a good walk rate (relatively speaking) suggests that there is some skill there that perhaps can be developed. And, yes, he needs more power. Maybe he should pull the ball more - just a thought. That walk rate could also represent the fact that pitchers did not need to throw him strikes to regularly get him out.

Cubs also signed Shane Victorino yesterday.

Cubs also signed Shane Victorino yesterday.

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Feb 26, 2016 -> 02:58 PM) Ah yes, that's right. And Fowler, Gallardo, and Kendrick all signed worse deals than the qualifying offer they turned down. Saw some people here saying they think Fowler is "betting on himself" (annoying phrase) by planning to have a great year and get a bigger multi year deal next year. That's not what's happening. How great of a year would Fowler have to have in order for a) the Cubs to offer a QO b) some other team to give him a 4 or 5 year deal at age 31 coming off what would have to be a career year? He's "betting on himself" to be mediocre. To not be offered a QO. And to have more teams competing to sign him because there's no pick attached. 2016 is for him to prove he's not worth a QO. He's betting he can get better than 2 years/$22 million- the Orioles offer minus the $13 million he gets from Cubs. If we assume the QO dollar amount goes up by another $0.5 million next year before it's reformed in the next CBA, a qualifying offer to Fowler next year could be accepted and give him a $16.3 million salary for 1 year. That's not the worst setup in the world either. As I said before though, I think his agent just misunderestimated how saturated the OF market was this year.

This also happened today. Secretary of State?

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 26, 2016 -> 02:04 PM) That high ERA was due to them trying to have him throw fewer sliders I know, and my guess at the time was that he was throwing almost 0 sliders because his arm wasn't there.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Feb 26, 2016 -> 12:59 PM) Isn't the money allotted to that pick as much if not more valuable then the pick itself. The White Sox have a pool of money that is significantly higher because of this pick and as such could sign a player that is drafted and deemed unsignable and they could throw more money at this player than if they did not have the resources attached to this pick. Is this thinking correct? As long as you're building for 2018-2019 and you don't have any major pieces you risk losing to FA before that, that thinking is totally solid.

@CST_soxvan Chris Sale's first Cactus Lge start won't be till March 19, Don Cooper said. Showed last spring doesn't need 6 spring starts. What the deuce? He had a 5.32 ERA in April last year. Are they that worried about his arm?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 26, 2016 -> 10:11 AM) True, but Manziel is big name If he could do the "turning his life around" thing after several years maybe someone would give him a chance to work out with the team, but I'd guess he'd have to go somewhere like AFL or Canada to show that he can play first.

All right...win one in the cornfields next tuesday and you clinch a share, and then you have the Turtles in the place where ranked teams go to die. Let's do this.

Chris Christie to endorse Donald Trump.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 26, 2016 -> 08:46 AM) I mean programs as a whole. If your overall revenue can't support all of the sports, then don't have sports. Very few athletic programs are self-sufficient. When you actually delve into the numbers this issue becomes much, much more complicated. You are correct that very few athletic programs fully fund themselves, but a big part of that also comes down to how stadium costs are booked. If the state or the school has fully funded the stadium and the athletic department is not paying for it, then on paper those departments are well in the black. If the state is picking up interest or providing low interest municipal bonds to finance a stadium, something similar can be set up. That is the first major complication. But then beyond that, you can't just look at "is an athletic department's budget balanced on its own" and call that 100% of the picture. There are a number of easily understood examples here: 1. How much money from alumni is generated due to good will from the sports teams? They're not likely to call me this week, but let's be honest here, if Indiana wins their next 2 games and someone were to call me that week, they'd get something out of it. 2. how much money is generated from licensing their logos? Would I have nearly as many Indiana items around my place if it weren't for the basketball team? I think that one is pretty obvious. Me buying Indiana gear at the bookstore or having parents buy it as XMas gifts is money going to the university for licensing that isn't going directly to the Athletic department, but you better believe I'm wearing red next Tuesday. 3. And finally, the hardest to calculate - how much good will and marketing do these programs generate? If you had to make people know your 40,000 person university is out there and generate good will and good applicants to your program, "hey and you can get tickets to Assembly Hall for the Maryland Game" is one helluva tool. Having your team appear on ESPN is literally a free day's worth of commercials for your university every time they have a big game. And let's be honest, if I could ever find a stable enough job to reproduce, the 2nd outfit that kid is wearing is going to be crimson. If you're trying to find good students for a 10,000 person class, both the experience and just seeing the darn school on TV is important as well.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Feb 26, 2016 -> 12:31 PM) I am not really all that upset I just don't think they are the best team in baseball or the national league. They are good if that makes them "special" fine I agree then they are special but you act like they are the 27 Yankees. The pathetic national league helps pump up their wins as it did with St Louis last year. The NL will be tighter this year but half of the teams suck. Their rotation is not deep, their defense can be sketchy and they strike out too much. Those are things that keep me from handing them the best team in baseball title right now. The right way to say this is that the Cubs are easily the best team on paper and it's not really close. The best team on paper does not always win the world series, the best team on paper does not even always make the playoffs. That's where those issues you note come in. No one is handing them the world series, but there's no exaggeration whatsoever to call them the best team on paper.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 26, 2016 -> 11:52 AM) He basically matches Baltimore's supposed offer if he gets 2/$20 million next offseason. But the my heart is with the Cubs was BS. He signed for $13 million. He could have taken the QO for almost $16 million. His heart is with the Cubs as long as other teams weren't willing to pay him more money. Nothing wrong with that. But the now standard line , "I turned down more money elsewhere" probably is true when most players say it, but 3 or 4 years from now it will not. I think a big part of this that I don't see in this thread anywhere is that his agent simply underestimated the competition on the market. If Upton and Cespedes weren't on the market, along with all the others who chewed up money, so that there were an extra 2 or so teams looking for an outfielder, he could easily have gotten a better deal...and frankly I think both Cespedes and Fowler have realized that - hence the options to be FA again next winter when the market is weaker on paper.

QUOTE (Alexeihyeess @ Feb 25, 2016 -> 09:06 PM) Rizzo isn't under 26, and Schwarber is a DH who has problems with lefties playing in the wrong league. Russell was a nightmare offensively. Bryant, sure OK. The Cubs could easily have a very young Matt Stairs and Royse Clayton, Troy Glaus and a good 1B closing in on age 30. Or the 27 Yankees. We'll see which one they wind up being closer to. A .696 OPS from a shortstop is a "nightmare"? The average OPS from shortstops in MLB last year was .690.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 25, 2016 -> 07:03 PM) Sure, we could have kidnapped him and forced him to play for the Sox, or drastically overpaid a player after which you would be angry at the production to cost ratio, or the Sox could have magically become the favorite to win the World Series thereby attracting more players. All are legit strategies. If the White Sox were not willing to "drastically overpay players" to compete this year or next then they made a mistake by trading for several players, including one expensive top 10 in the league at that position player, who will be free agents in 2 years. They set themselves a 2 year deadline - after that the team gets significantly worse and it will cost a lot of talent in trades just to tread water.