NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 12:09 PM) He should expect you to get the most expensive car on the market, and then have a meltdown when you don't do it. After all, that means you aren't doing your best to prove you love him. FTW

QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 11:46 AM) Then you can't honestly say that the Sox are doing everything they can to give the fans another championship. Maybe they're doing all that they are willing to do, but not all that they can do. Forget the Sox for a moment... I think you fail to understand the basics of baseball roster building. In any given year, there are 2-3 teams that are willing to pay anything, spend stupid money, to go for broke that season. This year, it appears to be the Dodgers and Nationals. Sometimes those teams succeed - other times they don't (see; 2012 Marlins). And almost no teams have every gone on binges like that for more than a few seasons But almost every team, every year, have financial constraints to deal within. That includes the Sox. So the question really isn't "are they spending top money at all positions", it is, are they doing the best they can with the dollars they have to spend.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 10:25 AM) I missed the $500K, but $7 mill of Konerko's salary this year is deferred from 2014-2020 in $1 mill yearly installments OK, so take that down to more like $103M then. Not $119M. Cot's has him at a $13.5M for this year, then the $6M starting after, but maybe there is a misunderstanding there. So at the time Passan wrote the article, Sox had anywhere from $102M to $109M committed.

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 09:54 AM) Presale code is.... 162594 That won't work during the ST-only period. The code for that is your account number, and when it is used once, it is gone.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 10:09 AM) Actually, after reading that I thought it was wrong too, then I checked the Baseball-Reference numbers. They have us, right now, at $110 million committed for this year, with arbitration guys bringing that up to $116 million (I don't think they had Beckham's number in there yet). Add in Lindstrom, and yeah, $118 million is pretty close to where they have us. I don't see that being the case, I think B-R is wrong here. Let's do the math, and then people can tell me if I am missing something... COMMITTED 2013: Dunn: $15M Peavy: $14.5M Danks: $14.25M (Passan was wrong here too, from what I can tell) PK14: $13.5M Rios: $12.5M Floyd: $9.5M Alexei: $7M Thornton: $5.5M Crain: $4.5M Keppinger: $3.5M Beckham: $2.975M De Aza: $2.075M Wise: $0.7M Sale: $0.5M A Sanchez: $0.5M Flowers: $0.5M Jones: $0.5M Reed: $0.5M Axelrod OR Santiago: $0.5M Veal: $0.5M Gimenez: $0.5M Quintana: $0.5M Viciedo: $0.5M That totals to $109.45M. So he's actuall off $10M, not $20M. I exaggerated apparently. Of course after he wrote that, the Sox acquired Lindstrom, so it goes up a few million. But that doesn't matter to what he wrote.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jan 19, 2013 -> 07:10 PM) His name is the loser of the 5th starter audition. It will almost assuredly be Quintana or Santiago. I actually agree with Marty here... QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 19, 2013 -> 07:27 PM) I'd prefer the loser take his regular turn at Charlotte rather than be long man. Santiago being a long reliever is a terrible idea. Let him start in Charlotte. Make Axelrod the long guy.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 21, 2013 -> 09:41 AM) Hard to argue, perhaps except for the line about backloaded contract hell. There is really only one problematic backloaded contract anywhere on their books. Also, he's about $20M too high on payroll (no idea where he gets the $119M number, because it looks like complete fantasy), he seems to think that Rios and Dunn doing well only "help" (LOL), rails on the Keppinge acquisition while failing to acknowledge that almost ANYTHING is an upgrade to what the Sox had there already, and seems to think the team overachieved (never mind their pythag says otherwise, and that only a couple hitters and 1 SP overachieved). Other than that, yeah, great article. Some of his points make a lot of sense of course, sarcasm aside. Paulie is on the wrong side of the curve and may not bounce back, Rios is unlikely to repeat his 2012, Flowers won't likely get anywhere close to AJ's 2012 numbers (then again, neither will AJ), Quintana is a regression concern and Sale and Peavy are injury concerns. All true.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 05:58 PM) I think it's the height of arrogance to blame fans not attending games for a team not being able to make the post season. There are many more important things to spend your money on than a baseball game. QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 06:09 PM) Do you ever re-read your posts after posting them? QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 06:27 PM) The mods are what make this board what it is. Seriously, re-read your post. You say there are many more important things than baseball... and in the same post say you can't blame fans for not making the postseason. Do you really not get the conflict in your own two sentences there? You are saying you can't blame the fans for not going, but then blame the team for not having the money to spend? You can't in the same breath make an argument for baseball being unimportant, but also expect baseball teams to spend money they don't have. Its ridiculous.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 05:58 PM) I think it's the height of arrogance to blame fans not attending games for a team not being able to make the post season. There are many more important things to spend your money on than a baseball game. Do you ever re-read your posts after posting them?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 07:32 AM) His dad only played until he was 34 and his last full season was when he was 32. Also, I don't recall Cecil every being as hefty/stocky as Prince is. Prince is listed as 5'11" and 275, but his dad was 6'3", and he weighed less.

This thread should be drug out into the street and shot. Then possibly incinerated.

Used to do it myself, until a couple years ago. Married, two kids, run my own company, investments (paper and other), a smorgasboard of deductions and credits... just go to be too much friggin work. Got a pretty big refund last year, but I brought down the deductions to compensate, so I expect to get only a small one this year.

QUOTE (floridafan @ Jan 12, 2013 -> 08:03 AM) Eric received his notification in the mail today to report to Early Spring Training, February 21st. I am fairly certain that having him report a couple weeks earlier than the majority of the other minor leaguers is a Very Good sign! Of course it could be standard operating procedure as well. It seems there are multiple waves coming in at different times. There are some minor league players going in January - for some sort of extra development. Then there is the early MiLB crowd, which apparently Eric is in. Then there is the "normal" minor league report time a week or two after that. I'm not sure if the various different early report times are for development, rehab, scouting or other purposes - could be a combination of all.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 09:56 AM) From my impression, I think Mitchell falls in the same boat as Jordan Danks, at the least needing a serious swing and approach overhaul to become a major league regular. If I'm right in that...then it might be 2 years before anyone is pushing that position. I think Konerko gets a 1 year deal for 2014. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 10:32 AM) Tracye Thompson is the one who has the best chance IMO. It has been years since I've been able to say this, but the Sox do actually have a position in the minors with some very nice depth of talent now: Hawkins and Thompson very high ceilings, Mitchell and Walker have potential to be starters (I like Walker a little better at this point, but both need a lot of refinement). Then there is the crowd of other guys like Short, Shoemaker, Coats and Haddow, who a few years ago would have been the top OF's in the Sox system (relatively). The outfield is where the system has improved the most in the past couple years. Unfortunately, most other positions still have a pretty significant lack of depth.

I think this year's Iowa State team may actually be better overall than last year's, despite losing Royce White. I wouldn't have thought that possible going into the season. Hoiberg was playing with the starting 5 all through the non-conf season, and they have a starting 5 that includes a freshman and two guys who didn't play for a year. And yet they managed to look very competitive with Cincy and UNLV on the road, and somehow took Kansas to OT in Lawrence (and would have one except for a ridiclous 3-point bank shot from way the f*** out with 1 second left by KU). The loss to Iowa was disappointing, but it seems like ISU always has to lose at least one non-conf game they should win. They are 6th nationally in scoring and rebounds both. And I don't think the B12 looks all that strong this year, relatively. ISU should have a good shot at going to the dance again.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 06:48 PM) The Sox had the 7th best record in the league and were 9th in attendance. Sox attendance isn't driven by payroll. The reason why the Sox are in a position where there are no easy answers to get better goes back to decisions that were made 5-6 years ago. Bolded is true - but the other way around is somewhat true. And yet, despite being 9th in attendence in the AL, they had the 5th highest team salary, and that was after actually SHEDDING some from 2011. The argument that this White Sox regime, under KW/Hahn and JerryCo (since, say, 2000-ish), is cheap or unwilling to invest in the team, is 100% complete nonsense. This organization puts more into player payroll with less revenue than most teams in baseball.

What I think is funny about these arguments that the Sox are somehow nickel and diming (despite having a relatively high payroll and relatively low attendance, thus rendering such an argument bulls***), is this screaming and yelling about how the team isn't good enough... and yet, no one is able to point out any possible path to get better. What trades or signings could the Sox even make at this point that make sense? A HUGE part of the equation here is what is even AVAILABLE at any given time in the market. There are only so many players, and only a small % are available, and you have to me up with some sort of plausible scenario for those. So let's hear it. Otherwise, the b****ing is just beating your head against a brick wall.

I have to say, and I am sure I will get railed on... but some of the arguments I am hearing for voting in Bonds, Clemens and other roiders are just empty. 1. "There are other cheaters in the Hall, so why can't others get in?" This is the famous 8 year old kid argument... why should I be punished? Such-and-such did it! Bulls***. Just as law enforcement cannot catch every crook, you cannot expect that to be a reason to not try. That argument says to me "I don't feel like making a real judgment here, so I'm going the lazy route". 2. "The character clause is stupid/unnecessary" or "it is too subjective". Voting for the Hall, by its nature, is subjective. There is no specific statistical criteria. Of course you have to make subjective calls. And if you think the character clause is bogus, I get that, that's fine... but it IS there, and those are the rules provided. 3. "We cannot be judge and jury or try people for PED - no conviction, no issues" If you are voting for the Hall, you ARE judge and jury for that purpose. That's the entire idea - you are making a call about someone's admission to the Hall. You are deciding. So yeah, you are. Now, how you USE the evidence you can gather, is up for much debate. If your line in the sand is a conviction, or maybe a positive test, or significant body of evidence, or even just rumor... then that is your line. 4. "We will never know who all used and who didn't, so you can't make that judgment" This is similar to the lazy argument mentioned above. Of course you don't know, you are not God. Your responsibility, if you are a writer on the vote, is to go with the information you have. For me personally, it is body of evidence. For Piazza, I have never seen anything remotely resembling acceptable evidence - only performance for a low draft choice. For Bonds or Clemens or Palmeiro, there is a plethora of evidence, that for me personally, is enough. But that is just my view, aside from the 3 silly arguments above. There are good arguments for allowing Bonds or the like to get in, no doubt. You may think the character clause is to be weighed against others and is less important, which I get... or you may think that your line in the sand for cheating is convictions... or you may think that their impact on the game was so materially positive that it outweighs the allegations of PED use. I can respect any of those arguments... just not the stupid ones lined out above. So for me, Piazza rates "clean" for my test. Bonds, Clemens and Palmeiro are not, in my view. Sosa is a tough one, the eye test and wholly unnatural performance curve (and giant head, and odd behavior) are all scary enough that I would be he did, but the evidence is nowhere near that against Bonds, Clemens and Palmeiro. Fortunately, Sosa's body of baseball work isn't as strong as theirs, so I can feel good about leaving him off regardless. One final thing... cheating between the lines versus steroids... to me, there is a huge difference. Doing something that is per se illegal to gain an effective tools advantage usable at all times is, in my view, far worse than getting a small edge by throwing a spit ball. However, I can certainly see the argument otherwise on this one.

Craig Biggio Edgar Martinez Jack Morris Dale Murphy Mike Piazza Tim Raines Alan Trammell

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 8, 2013 -> 09:03 AM) Saw a projection that had the Sox as a 77 win team right now. I think that's a fair assessment. The SoxTalk crowd, whenever we do the poll in Spring Training, is actually amazingly good at predicting the season. The top of the bell curve is usually really close, at least the last few years. Better than a lot of the professional projections have been. 77 wins seems far too low to me. This was an 85 win team... now getting back what was supposed to be its best starting pitcher, and with Sale and Q matured a year... a bullpen more loaded with rookies than any in baseball in years has had a chance to grow up... the team now has a 3B that won't (likely) be a black hole for the first half of the season... Viciedo and Flowers with a chance to grow into their roles. On the downside, there is almost no way the Sox get production at C anything like what AJ had in 2012... and Rios is highly unlikely to repeat his 2012, though his mechanical changes meant he was more consistent through the year, so a big drop isn't likely... and then you have the arm health questions about Danks and Sale. Assuming Danks can get back to being somewhat close to his healthy numbers, and Sale/Q handle the innings load OK... this team should be better than last year, not worse. So go up from 85, instead of down. If healthy becomes an issue for multiple SP's, then yeah, 77 wins is a good guess, or maybe worse.

QUOTE (Arno @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 01:30 PM) Been White Sox fan for 57 years. Most disgusting non deal Soxhave made.AJ was great handler of pitching staff and a good team player. Makes me want to quit being Sox fan. Why keep some of the worthless pitchers that cost them games last year and let AJ walk is beyond my comprehension. Welcome to SoxTalk! I liked AJ a lot too, but you have to be realistic. AJ is 36 and put up a season in 2012 that was way, way above his normal offensive output. What do you think the chances are he gets even close to that a year later, as a catcher? Close to none. So you are really only looking to replace his average output (or less, given his age and position), along with his below average defensive skills. And for pitcher handling, Sox pitchers seem to really like working with Flowers. So, why spend an extra $7M on AJ, for what would probably be similar production? Because without it, it could be the Sox weren't able to re-sign Peavy, or get Keppinger, or make some other future move.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 02:55 PM) The "more realistic CPI" is a Social Security benefits cut. Call it what it is. Of course it is. Who said otherwise? I was just pointing out that it is a benefit cut for FUTURE benefits, as opposed to taking cash out of the economy NOW.

Y2HH is right that the debt ceiling is about already-executed and/or passed programs from the legislature. If you want to rein in spending, rein in spending. In the long run, spending absoutely needs to be put under better control. Regardless of how good anyone thinks any given program are, the fact is the US government can't afford what it is buying. Something has to be done. But right now, during a burgeoning recovery, you need to be very careful, and only do the right kind of cutting. Things like keeping SS benefit increases to a more realistic CPI, for example, is a good idea IMO - it doesn't take any money out of the current economy (directly), and helps keep that under control going forward. In Medicareland, it gets more complicated, but that sort of long-term slowing of growth should be the mindset.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 11:03 AM) yes. then the same Democrats that are in here supporting it will be posting about how terrible this mean old Republican created rule is. They have Irish Alzheimers, forget everything except the grudge. QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 11:08 AM) You say that, but it's true. This isn't the first time, won't be the last time. Of course its true, but that doesn't change the fact that it is good policy. I don't care which party decides to put it in. Both parties will be effected the same way, in the long term.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 08:47 AM) Loved: The Sixth Sense Signs The Village Disliked: Unbreakable The Happening (holy crap this one sucked) Didn't even watch: The Last Airbender Lady in the Water Overall I REALLY REALLY loved Signs and The Village. The bolded... that is something I've never heard. You disliked Unbreakable, but liked The Village?