IlliniKrush

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 5, 2014 -> 01:58 PM) Dont link pay articles jerkface Isn't pay for me, and I don't have any sort of subscription.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 5, 2014 -> 11:24 AM) Or its easier to send a message to the team that even a respected Vet can be punished for behavior they dont think fits a contending team. Theories abound even with the hard evidence he's never done that in a game, ever. It's not sending a message to the team. It's sending a message to Bennett, plain and simple. His act reached a point where it needed to be addressed. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...0805-story.html

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 4, 2014 -> 03:17 PM) While you're at it, sign up Randy Moss and Jerry Rice as well. You forgot TO

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 3, 2014 -> 05:31 PM) Couple of hits yesterday, but you are correct, Beckham batting 2nd today clearly was the difference. Oh, couple of hits makes batting him 2nd OK? He's batting what, .190 the past 2 months? It's an awful decision to have him bat 2nd, plain and simple. There's zero defense of it. Waits for a "you never played in MLB and never managed so you must know more than Robin!" argument you trot out. Every. Single. Time.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 1, 2014 -> 08:27 PM) People need to get it in their heads, Robin doesn't have a TV in the dugout. He is told when to challenge. After he's out on the field. He needs to be off the bench when he sees that play looking pretty questionable. At live speed, I wasn't sure he had touched the bag before it went loose. Robin thinks it's not even questionable though? He needs to go out there just like fathom said.

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 1, 2014 -> 08:22 PM) That's real close in terms of having control of it in his glove. Should have been challenged. That wasn't control at all, not with the foot on the bag.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 31, 2014 -> 07:02 PM) Do you have a sand wedge? Yeah, and I suppose I should be using that closer to the green instead of my wedge...

Played today, shot 110. Not terrible for me. Yes, I realize 110 to some of you is awful, but I've only recently picked up golf in the past couple of years and haven't played a ton. Some bogeys, decent amount of double bogeys. Missed a bunch of close par putts, but then some holes where the wheels fall off and put up an 8 or 9, some OB balls etc. Driver was brutal today. Highlight of the day was making 2 putts off the rough and in, each from about 15-20 feet away. Learned that I need a 2/3 hybrid. I don't have a ton of distance off the tee (when I can actually find a fairway, but slice isn't as bad as it was), which is fine, but I need something for a shot or two up the fairway besides my 3 iron or 4 hybrid. Also Rock the more I read about your lob wedges, the more I think I'll need one of those for shorter shots that need some loft, not just using a pitching wedge. I also need to do what you talked about which is practice some bump and runs etc.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 11:21 PM) Now we're pining for Salty and his .228 batting average? Good lord (I realize he walks some). He also has defensive holes in his game. (Flowers is a better framer, and may be a better thrower too). The grass is always greener........ 2b, RF, and LF are far bigger issues than catcher. A Garcia might fix RF. Johnson might fix 2B. But right now, they are bigger issues. Young talent please. We trade for Salty we have traded for a mediocre catcher. False. We're not acquiring anyone to play RF for next season. It's not an issue compared to C. C is at the very top of the list of needs. It's as important as anything else at this point.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 08:02 PM) We have $46M in payroll commitments for next year with Danks. I see no reason why we can't afford a $120M payroll in 2015 if we so choose. That's $74M in available space with only a couple of arbitration eligible players. That's more than enough money to fill all the needs you listed above (2B will be filled internally). Cash flow will not be our problem this coming offseason, finding a way to spend it all efficiently will be, which makes moving Danks less valuable to us. Furthermore, it's not like we have a ton of rotational depth. We're currently starting one guy who was released earlier this year and another guy who made his major league debut at 29 years of age. We basically have nothing behind them at AAA (Beck has proven nothing yet IMO), so things could get ugly until Rodon is ready. I'm not a Danks supporter by any means, but him eating 200 innings with a decent percentage of quality starts has more value to us than his WAR will indicate. I have no problem trading Danks, but salary relief alone won't make us better for 2015. We need something back for him, even if it's a fairly insignificant piece, or else keep him as an over-priced #4 starter for another year. Entering the offseason with three holes in our rotation is not ideal by any means. Guys that "eat innings" while not providing a ton of actual value in terms of WAR are available every off season. At this point, Danks is turning into "just a guy" I get that you don't want to give him away for literally nothing, but what I'm saying is, if they are offering some mid-tier prospect, Rick shouldn't be really playing hard ball expecting a lot more considering the pitcher he is now, and the bad contract over the next 2 years. QUOTE (scs787 @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 11:04 PM) You've brought up leverage a few times here. I disagree. I think the fact that the Sox are seemingly close to being a playoff team and the fact that Danks is under contract for a few more years, thus making him a potential part of said playoff team gives the Sox some leverage. They absolutely do not HAVE to trade him, therefor leverage is there. The Yankees absolutely do not HAVE to trade for him either. Leverage can work both ways, pretty easily. No one's dying for John Danks.

Olbermann is really good. It's about as un-ESPN as you can get for being on ESPN. Good, straight-forward sports opinions and some funny stuff mixed in. Not sure how it took me this long to catch on to watching it regularly.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 06:26 PM) Will it? We should have plenty of money to spend in the offseason, we don't have plenty of pitching to give up. I don't see it making much sense to just dump him to clear more salary. He's more valuable to us than other teams at the moment and I'd just rather hang onto him instead of giving him away. Yes, it will. How can it hurt? Remember how we had a ton of money to sign that big 1B this winter? That's what freeing up money does for you, not only this off season, but next. There's no limit to "we should have plenty of money." I guess it depends how much you value Danks, and I don't value him much (and the numbers support that) at 14 mil. And I don't think he's going to get any better (his walk rate going way up this year is alarming, and he's throwing like 86mph, and his FIP is higher). Plus he's soon to be your 4th best lefty starter behind Rodon either next year or at the latest the year after. I'd much rather roll that money into more money to get a big-time starter, catcher, 2b, LF, etc. over the next 2 years. You're also going to need money to extend guys.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 04:46 PM) Yeah, but how many of those guys are available today? I don't think anyone is suggesting anyone is going to "give up the farm" for Danks. I think what some have said is that Danks has some value. That they wouldn't just extricate themselves from the contract for nothing if they could today. I'm not sure where I stand, honestly...what if we win the next two games? We'd be 5 back of the Tigers with 50 games remaining. He has little value, especially with that contract. The numbers spell that out. Getting out of that contract would be great at this point. IMO, he's not getting any better, he's only going to get worse than this. That makes that contract in each passing year even worse than it is this year. We already missed the window on Beckham. And LOL at actually thinking they are winning the division. You need to be setting up for 2015 and 2016/2017. Freeing up some money will help that a lot. QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 04:57 PM) When was it suggested that the Yankees should give up the farm? The point is that Danks does have value and the Sox have no need to move him without getting a deal that is in their favor. Tim Lincecum has been worse than Danks and got a $20M AAV contract. AJ Burnett has been similar and got a $16M AAV contact. Edwin Jackson has been worse and got the same money Danks did. That would mean that he is paid at nearly his market value. If the Sox just wanted out from a bad contract he would have been gone already, they want a deal that makes sense for the organization. Your list only contains about half of the AL pitchers, so if you are arguing he is a middle of the road pitcher, I agree. But middle of the road pitchers are getting contracts now that are in line with what Danks is making. Getting out of that contract and getting an OK prospect IS a deal in their favor, that's the point. They do want out from the bad contract, which is the reason he's on the block. If they thought he was so valuable, and cost-controlled, they'd keep him around the next 2.5 years. This is not what the Sox expected/hoped for when signing him to this huge contract.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 04:12 PM) Actually, Danks is cost controlled for long term the other two are two month rentals, so that swings more value to Danks. Danks contract is not really that far out of line with his production. What? That's a bad contract for the pitcher he is at this point. Cost-controlled doesn't mean anything when the cost is bad. Why do you think it's been so hard to trade Dunn the past few years? But he's cost-controlled! All things being equal, you're taking Peavy for an expiring contract before you're trading for Danks. If there's so much value to Danks, why are the Sox trying to move him? Why aren't the Yankees giving up the farm for him if it's such a fair trade and he's "cost-controlled?" The Sox are trying to get out from a bad contract, that's all this trade is about. His contract is WAY out of line with his production. A guy that was worth .9 WAR this year is worth 14 mil? Plus for the next two years? No. Take a look at this list. Everyone ahead of him is making 14 mil+? That's the only way that it would be "not really that far out of line with his production." He's 7th from last. http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=...r=&players=

QUOTE (Dunt @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 03:56 PM) $12-14 AAV is pretty standard fair for a #4 these days. It shouldn't be, but there are a lot of teams paying crummy #4 pitchers quite a bit. Danks wasn't signed to be a number 4 starter. But, I was comparing him to the contracts previously mentioned, that don't have bad money attached to them. QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 04:02 PM) But what people don't understand is that in a trade, you're asking a team to give you talent for the surplus value of the contract. John Danks has no surplus value at all at $14m per year. Anyone could just sign a market rate asset in the offseason for that. So if you're considering paying Danks the next couple years at that rate, you'd at best take those years for free, because that's the worst case scenario for what it would cost to acquire someone like him in free agency. You don't give up significant talent just for the right to pay a guy every penny he's worth, unless he's some one-of-a-kind talent that isn't available on the open market. There ya go.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 03:23 PM) Two very similar pitchers just pulled in two of the Giants top 10 prospects and the #5 prospect in a loaded Cardinals system, no reason not to hold out to see if you can get a similar deal. How easily you take contracts out of play. No, you don't hold out, you get rid of bad paper at this point.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 02:54 PM) If both sides are agreed upon the return player(s), I have to believe that the trade ends up getting done. I don't mind the Sox holding out until tomorrow morning for another million bucks or so, but don't think they would walk away from the deal because of it. It'd be completely idiotic to walk away from a deal over a few million dollars or whatever player is coming back. Just get yourselves out from under this giant contract of a not-so-good pitcher. Hopefully Rick doesn't bluff too long here.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 02:20 PM) Southport is solid, it's funny how different it is just a few blocks away from Wrigleyville. Are people under the age of 25 even allowed to live in the West Loop? I believe so, just depends if you're a 23 year old looking for the party scene of Wrigleyville or not.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 05:27 PM) Any suggestions for neighborhoods to live in Chicago as a 23 year old? I don't have a car, so living near public transportation is a must. I have a pretty general idea of where I think I'd like to be, but I was wondering if anybody here had any suggestions. Definitely look into the west loop, especially if you're working in the loop. It's really a great area, without the wrigleyville douche-yness. Just depends what you are looking for.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 03:00 PM) Carriage Greens in Darien. Reserved through GolfNow the morning I was going to play for a noon tee-time. Nice deal. I don't know anything about GolfNow except for that TV commercial. Looks like it pops up some discounts?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 11:02 AM) Went out on Sunday and finally got back to my old self and shot an 81. Doubled a couple of holes hitting some atrocious sand shots (basically out of cement on a muni-course, so I don't feel too bad). The round took 4.5 hours though. So tough to maintain consistency waiting 10 minutes on every tee box. But, at the same time, my round was all of 20 bucks with a cart. Where'd you play?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 27, 2014 -> 04:51 PM) Or posting on message boards. We know all the answers and can tell you what should have been done the moment the play ends. It is funny people who say lack of experience is the problem have all the answers with less experience. You're trotting out this line of thinking yet again? You realize this nonsense isn't any sort of legit defense of Robin, or any manager for that matter, right? OK let's get this straight. If you haven't played and/or coached at the major league level, you are never allowed to comment/question anything about players or managers at the major league level, even if you have a great understanding of the game, rosters, etc. Got it. Close down the board, I guess. And I guess this means the end for radio/TV etc.

Someone bring back the catch all thread.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 11:19 PM) Tell us some stories. I'd be interested. Calling a neurosurgeon "unnecessary" on a head surgery because a plastic surgeon was already there.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 25, 2014 -> 12:50 PM) Stephen A Smith comments on how women need to do more to avoid provoking men into violence. His words. (used word "provocation" repeatedly). And a few days ago he was backing Dungy with complete idiot logic, then getting all gangster with Skip Bayless. Guy's a f***ing clown.