southsider2k5

QUOTE (oldsox @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 06:46 PM) He prints it. Then he deposits it into a bank.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 06:43 PM) I was guessing "majority" may mean chairman, like the Michael Jordan led charlotte team. No way he gets 500 million out of a book deal. Chairman of the Board and/or President of the team makes sense. Majority owner means cash and tons of it.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 04:20 PM) This is one of the worst #BothSides we've had on here. Trump says the election is rigged, that people are cheating, that we need people to keep an eye on people in particular areas (cough minorities cough) to prevent them from stealing the election, that he may not accept the results of the election, and that MILLIONS of illegal votes were placed. Hillary's campaign accepts the loss, says there's no evidence of fraud, says they don't expect the recount in Wisconsin to change anything, but they're going to be a part of the process. Totally the same! Honestly, this the worst, ITS DIFFERENT! I have ever seen. A month ago, people who didn't accept election results were a danger to democracy, and Trump had to disavow even the very idea of challenging the election results without ever knowing what they would be. There was no chance at fraud, or a rigged election. Trump was crazy for even having suggested it. But now, it's Clinton, so it is cool. Now we actually care about the actual 'what if's'? Please. Now it just happens that Stein has this idea to challenge the results, and raises more money than she has ever raised, by a multiple margin, and then TeamClinton just happens to jump on board. Its more of the same from the Clinton's. They will quite literally do or say anything to win. They just managed to get one upped by an even better con artist, so now they are looking for ways to get around it. As much as I can't believe people keep falling for Donald Trump's BS, I can't believe people are still falling for the Clintons' either.

Out of curiosity, would this be with the current ownership group, or a new one? And where in the world would Barack Obama be coming up with the majority of a billion-ish dollars from?

QUOTE (hi8is @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 03:33 PM) http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox...radeable_pieces i'd be down for that.

So I get that the Bears have a ton of injuries at WR, but what did the drop, like 10 passes? Barkley got better as the game went on, but holy s*** were the wide outs bad. That being said, glad to see them lose the game and not hurt their draft position.

Barkley is just super inaccurate, thought it doesn't help that the receivers are dropping everything in sight.

Damn, that was a weak attempt at a catch. The linebacker just pushed him over and took that INT.

QUOTE (PolishPrince34 @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 12:03 PM) In 2 years Dodgers will only have $47 million locked up on their active roster. That will be scary with Harper, Machado, etc. all on the free agent market. Also Yankee's will have only $55 million locked up. No chance for the smaller market teams. But it sounds like they don't have that kind of time, no?

QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 11:43 AM) I said 'per se' aka 'for the sake of the argument'. You really trust Reinsdorf to take back high ceiling 19 year olds over players close to the majors? I really don't. The guy is what, 81? I really don't think you could find that many roster eligible guys in those sort of deals. 20-25 seems insanely high.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 11:32 AM) Unless we get one of their starters back in a deal like Ryu or McCarthy Could be. That would make sense for LA, but we'd have to clean off their top prospects list if dead weight like that is added in.

Well at least they pulled 1 point out of last night. 7 points in 7 games on the Circus trip.

QUOTE (PolishPrince34 @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 07:26 AM) Interesting article on Dodgers financial situation. http://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgers/la-s...1126-story.html Interesting read. That could make a guy like Sale or Quintana even more important. It would also mean that a guy like Frazier wouldn't happen, while they could ask us to take back a Puig in order to dump a few bucks to make a deal revenue neutral.

QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Nov 26, 2016 -> 10:32 PM) I agree. But if you traded everyone with value this offseason per se (Sale, Q, Eaton, Abreu, Robertson, Jones, Melky, Frazier, Lawrie, Jennings - 10 players) you're looking at getting around 20-25 players in return. There's maybe 5 or 6 guys on our 40-man I'd be okay ditching without either seeing more of them or getting literally nothing in return for them, on a supposed rebuilding team. There is zero chance of that happening. Even if they did, the guys they would get back would mostly be pre-40 man roster.

QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Nov 26, 2016 -> 07:41 PM) True. And thinking about it, it would be pretty difficult to do in one offseason due to 40-man roster spots. The 40-man currently sits at 39 after the Ranaudo release. It will already be tight with only a Sale trade, if we get players close to ML ready. Eh. There is plenty of chaff on the 40 man roster that will be easy to replace if we get back superior players.

Well that one fully lived up to the hype.

QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Nov 26, 2016 -> 02:27 PM) Winning isn't easy. IT ISN'T ABOUT THE CUBS. It's about being open minded and trying something new. I'm willing to bet you're in the category of people on here who want to keep going for it again too. Or trade Sale and Frazier then keep going for it in half-ass White Sox style. I swear some people want to keep banging their heads against the wall and expect different results instead of using new and different ideas with an open mind. Joe Maddon just so happens to be on the Northside of Chicago. I'd be saying the same thing if he was still in Tampa (where he was also highly successful with a lot less talent). Again, I didn't suggest to do it with your whole team. One of the mentioned players in Bregman isn't even on our team, and Sanchez is likely to be a bench player anyway. When Zack Collins comes up we damn well better use him as a 1B/C/DH and maybe even LF if we keep him at catcher, to keep his bat legit. Look how quick Joe Mauer became irrelevant and an awful contract by staying behind the plate strictly. Buster Posey's OPS+ has fallen every single year the past 5. So look at the Cubs, but it isn't about the Cubs. Um, OK. Like I said. If you listen to people who play the game, most players need stability to be at their best. Sure exceptions exist, but in general, if you look around baseball, star players play the same position, and hit in the same spot in the order, almost every single day of a season.

QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Nov 26, 2016 -> 02:37 PM) But would you rather have a guy putting up .300/.400/.500+ slash line potentially at a different spot with 30-40 HR, or an average at best catcher with a much lesser batting line? We drafted Collins for his bat first and foremost. If we end up fully rebuilding and gain LF and 1B prospects I would agree with everything you said. As it stands now we don't even have those spots covered long-term. For my two cents, it is more about what is better for the team as a whole. This franchise is better if they have SS and 3B covered with star-ish players until the next decade and beyond.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 26, 2016 -> 01:14 PM) Would the Green Party have done the same thing had Clinton won? http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016...-audit-the-vote Why not audit the vote? I fully expect that it was the Clinton camp that pushed Stein to start the recount talk. It is funny how she got more publicity for this, than anything else the entire campaign...

QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Nov 26, 2016 -> 01:01 PM) Lol. 2015 and 2016 Cubs never happened I guess. Just because all 30 MLB teams don't do something doesn't mean it can't or wouldn't work for the White Sox. It's absurd to denounce something we haven't even tried. But we have failed with guys having 1 set position. Joe Maddon's Christmas cards read "2016 MLB CHAMPS" The reason it is something you noticed is because they were the one team who was able to carry it off. If it were easy, 29 other teams would be doing it. I swear some people need to take the Cubbie blue glasses off.

QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Nov 26, 2016 -> 10:52 AM) I would say Tyler Saladino embraces such a role, though. Heard him say he's been playing everywhere on the diamond since he was a kid. I can't speak on that for Bregman. I hate to bring the Cubs up, but they're the perfect example. Bryant, Zobrist, Baez, Contreras, Schwarber all can play in multiple spots. I'm willing to bet all of those guys have egos too. It's about a selfless culture where winning is the most important thing. Sounds great on a greeting card. Doesn't work as well in real life.

Guess who isn't accepting the campaign results? I will give you a hint, they campaigned on accepting the election results... This is the exact reason I couldn't vote for these hypocrites. http://wgntv.com/2016/11/26/clinton-campai...in-the-recount/

QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Nov 25, 2016 -> 04:16 PM) Bregman is extremely versatile. Saladino and Sanchez can both play anywhere in the IF. You guys are arguing apples and oranges here. Why do versatile players need to have a set position, especially in this day and age? Bregman will hit anywhere you put him and Saladino will defend anywhere you put him. In general, players do better with a set role. Some can flourish otherwise, but in general, players want to know where they are playing and hitting on a daily basis. Moving people around and getting them thinking are usually not good things.

QUOTE (Brian @ Nov 25, 2016 -> 04:05 PM) Buy a box. Cut a hole in the box... Ah, the classics.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Nov 25, 2016 -> 02:31 PM) But why does it matter? Next year will be a lost season, might as well keep Bregman where he best fits long-term. If Sanchez or Davidson has to play some 3B, who really cares, neither of these guys is going to be a starter on our next competitive team. Why wouldn't he fit at 3B? Long term, that is his best value.