southsider2k5

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 28, 2015 -> 11:50 AM) I live in Denver (and, as a disclaimer, spend my time at microbreweries, not dispensaries). Yeah, the 16th Street Mall in downtown has vagrants, but it's always had vagrants. And the commercial real estate market in Denver is absolutely being driven by the marijuana industry (per a recent report, 1 in 11 commercial buildings in Denver are used for marijuana). The bankers have issues with it because banks have to deal with the conflict between federal and state law (lending where the collateral is being used in contravention of federal law - there are actually a lot of interesting legal cases dealing with the conflict between state and federal law). It's a positive from a state revenue standpoint. It's a positive for jobs and the real estate market. Changing the law now would shutter lots businesses, leave tons of commercial properties empty, shut down a reliable source of state revenue - revenue that funds education keeping that burden away from property taxes - and would have a horrible economic impact on the state... It is a known risk to build a business that is afoul of the federal law the day it opens.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Oct 28, 2015 -> 11:17 AM) I think they need to get guys close to major league ready or young guys already in majors. Trading Q for prospects doesn't really make sense. Totally this. They need a good to great starting C and/or 3B out of the deal to start with.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 28, 2015 -> 11:08 AM) I'd like to see what they get in return for Q, but it just seems like another nostalgic stopgap type of move It isn't nostalgia if he can still pitch.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Oct 28, 2015 -> 11:07 AM) I'd still take the chance on Puig. I just read Molly Knight's book "The Best Team Money Can Buy" about the Dodgers. It's really good and there is tons of Puig stuff in there. It talks about how the White Sox were one of the few teams that scouted him and really wanted him. Part of the reason why Dodgers offered so much money at the time. If the price is right, he could be huge in the middle of our line up. What the Dodgers are asking is the $42 million question.

Rockford IceHogs 32 mins · Erik Gustafsson recalled to the Chicago Blackhawks... Read more here: bit.ly/1RBtywV

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 28, 2015 -> 09:52 AM) I'm not looking to trade any of them. SP is a strength, but the "depth" is overstated, IMO. Sale is elite, Quintana is a great #2, Rodon is a 3 with big upside, Danks is an overpaid #5 man in our #4 hole, and Johnson is a 4/5 with the upside of a 3. Behind that, we have Fulmer and some prospects that certainly have upside but that look like they are most likely going to be relievers. 1. You cannot assume Fulmer is ready as quickly as Rodon was, and even if you DO, you have to remember that Rodon pitched like a back-end guy most of the season. 2. If you remove Quintana from that #2 slot due to a trade, the whole thing suddenly looks very shaky. I think Rodon will become a strong #2 at some point, but it's very much a question mark if that happens this year -- he still struggle with command frequently and control almost as often, and he needs to learn to trust his fastball. And until he does learn to trust his fastball, we're not going to know if it has enough movement to be a big pitch. If it doesn't his control suddenly has to get really good. He's got work to do. 3. Remove ANY of them for a significant injury -- even Danks -- and you're in trouble quickly. You could argue we need to ADD a starter or two, at least of the "one-year pillow contract" type. I think the question is more like would you rather have a weakness in an area where you can traditionally build depth, or one where you can't? If being weak in starting pitching means we get back real position players for places like 3B and C, I am OK with it. Historically we have been able to turn out guys who can fill spots in the rotation.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Oct 28, 2015 -> 08:35 AM) Yikes. Knowing Trestman, he was probably scared of him.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Oct 28, 2015 -> 08:21 AM) Man the jerking off of Hoiberg on 670 today is out of control. Don't worry, in a couple of years they will be tearing him apart and calling for his firing.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 28, 2015 -> 09:21 AM) Knowing this organization, it's almost a lock they do sign Buehrle, which I'd find extremely disappointing. If it is a one year type of deal, and it allows the team to deal Quintana and get an equitable amount of talent for a place like 3B and/or C, it makes the team SO much better.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Oct 28, 2015 -> 09:18 AM) Northside, do you have the list of guys that will be exposed to Rule 5 if unprotected? Sox are in a position to make a bunch of claims of guys like this. Cubs in particular have a lot of guys Rule 5 eligible. Astros in the same boat. The next few years will be interesting. The teams that loaded up internationally are going to start hitting those 40 man roster crunches. The Dodgers are going to be a big one in addition the couple of teams you listed. There will be chances at the next Jose Quintana out there.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Oct 28, 2015 -> 06:56 AM) I don't see us trading Quintana, because that creates a hole in the rotation that will be difficult to fill. A 1-2-3 of Sale, Rodon, & Quintana is critical if we want to compete in 2016/2017. I could see us trading Erik Johnson in a package for a young position player and then going out and signing a veteran free agent like Latos or Fister to fill the #4 spot. Fulmer potentially being a mid-season call-up gives us the flexibility to go with a couple of veterans in the back of the rotation and trade some minor league pitching for offense. I have said the crazy idea before, and I am going to stick with it. Sign Buehrle, trade Quintana.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 28, 2015 -> 08:48 AM) With a pitching coach like Cooper around, it's a good idea to grab a handful of reclamation arms each offseason. This is a good one. Davidson, sure. Smith I think they may still protect - you have to remember how thin the majors are on catching talent. Not just the Sox. And if Smith goes, barring an offseason upgrade at the position (which may happen), your next best bets currently in the org are Nieto (who did poorly in AA) and org guy Jeremy Dowdy who hasn't been a starter most of his pro career. That's frighteningly little depth at the position. There are lower level catchers who may turn into something later, but only Smith and Nieto could maybe, possibly, step in and not be a complete disaster at this point. Nieto was already outrighted. He is off of the 40 man roster.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 28, 2015 -> 08:55 AM) What happened to Austin, Rodon's catcher at NC State? He is still in the minors.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 28, 2015 -> 05:27 AM) It's just as worthwhile in terms of wins and losses to invest in a plethora of "speed/defensive first" players and sprinkle them throughout your system. With the Royals, guys like Dyson, Paulo Orlando, Gore and Mondesi. For the Mets, Juan Lagares. The White Sox had Leury Garcia, but the most memorable burner was Rodney McCray back in the day. We're lacking that guy who can automatically take second or even third in the late innings when you need to manufacture a run (not to mention everyone wanted to run Yost out of town already for not having Gore to pr for Zobrist and steal 3rd base in the late innings to give KC three opportunities to drive him in.) We always waste an out bunting, even with Eaton on first. When you're scratching to win games by one or two runs like we will for the immediate future due to a below average offense, you especially need speed, defense and a bullpen in the late innings. Starting baseball academies in Jamaica, Brazil and Colombia would have a bigger payoff imo. Maybe Australia, China or India. Or taking over and operating a struggling team in the KBO that would be a feeder to the Sox, etc. Also, being the first into Cuba when they open it up. Ignoring the typical list of names post... Paulo Orlando came from where? Also the Sox had a couple of the leading SB players in the minors both of the last couple of years.

Cavs playing physical on the inside, and no fouls being called. Bulls are getting to the rim at will with Rose out there.

This is a nice lottery ticket. I wonder if they see something to fix to keep him healthier?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 03:03 PM) It actually happens quite often where a prospect will tell a team he is not interested, only to get drafted by another org whom he'd prefer to be with (whether via existing relationship with the scouts / org). FutureSox had an article up from someone who said they told one org they weren't interested and then signed with us later. It absolutely happens under this new environment and probably quite a lot and that extra $20K per year is relatively material when you are talking someone getting that up front bonus of $100K or just north of $100K. Basically it ensures you get a higher quality draft pick from round 10 through because over the course of 3 years, you essentially have given them an undiscounted additional 60% vs. what another team could offer (and I think 3 years is a relatively safe number to presume a minor leaguer would at least still be in the minors). Does it happen in the later rounds? The stories I have seen involved guys with leverage and big bonuses. I don't recall seeing with guys who were getting drafted late.

I think the Bulls win tonight. They usually do much better in the regular season against the Cavs/LeBron. It is when the season is on the line that the LeBron led teams crush the Bulls.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 02:44 PM) On the bolded, that sort of thing happens quite often. Of the pool of say 1000 guys that will be drafted or signed after the 10th round, offering substantially more money relative to their bonus is certainly going to give you more of the guys at the top of that pile than you'd otherwise get access to. Also the international players, and other UDFA's (to a limited value extent), will benefit even more from this. Finally, as illustrated, you only need to get about 0.4 WAR improvement each year from this. Heck, just one player making the majors over another choice each year that wouldn't make it might get you there. You get a whole bunch of improvement from draft stock and better health, and 0.4 WAR is a pretty easy number to hit. If you are looking at it simply like that, the Sox signed Gordon Beckham for $2 million and got 0.7 WAR out of him. As I said earlier, the players have to be good enough to payoff. Replacement level players can be had annually around baseball, so realistically this has to pay off in decent players that you couldn't have found before.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 02:25 PM) I think you are working on the assumption that players just wait for their name to be called on draft day. That is how it is supposed to work, but it absolutely does not. Teams feel out virtually all the players they plan to sign, via back channels, and find out who they may be able to get. So the pool of potential draftees is variable on where they sign, for the most part - therefore a team offering significantly more effective money or benefits will definitely get a better pick of the litter. It is hard to say how many players per year that effects - could be one or two, or could be twenty - but the pool is much more players at stake than not. Not at all. Like I said, how many guys are going to tell teams NOT to draft them, because they think they have a shot (at whatever confidence level) at a team being willing to pay them another $20k year, AND be a player that the White Sox couldn't/wouldn't have drafted before that point. Both of those things have to be true for players to fit into being a benefit from this new pay scale. Then the players that fall into those slots have to be better than the $3 million-ish a year that the team would be paying for this new scale. I think we just differ on what the benefit would be for the franchise who did this. I see the upside as very minimal, and probably a money loser in the long run. The most talented players aren't going to be swayed by this. The players that would are going to be minimally talented and/or ceiling limited.

Scrap heapers. Chris Cotillo ‏@ChrisCotillo 26m26 minutes ago Electing free agency: Kyle Blanks (TEX), Carlos Corporan (TEX), Brett Bochy (SFG), Darwin Barney (TOR), Domonic Brown (PHI)

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 01:59 PM) SS2K5, I think you are missing both key points here. One, the money isn't to get a player in the draft (or Intl market) to sign or not. It is to get guys where there is competition for signing them. For, let's say, the guys in rounds 11 to 30, there is competition for most or all of them. And their bonuses will be only a few thousand or maybe a few 10's of thousands. For ALL of that group, the extra 20k/year is a huge amount, doubling or more their combined bonus plus salary income. So that means the team who did this, would be "the top choice" for far more players, and therefore the Sox get more of the better ones. Two, you are ignoring the health and wellness aspect, which is huge. This is the benefit all players in the organization would enjoy, and you'd get a whole field of prospects in better shape, and better able to focus on skill improvement. I did say earlier that I get the changes for things like food and facilities. Those would/could actually make a difference. What competition is there in the draft? How many players would tell a team NOT to draft them, just because they wanted to get the Sox to draft them for an extra $20k a year? Very, very few guys are going to refuse to sign here, but would because they get an extra $20k a year. Even fewer of them are actually ever going to be good enough to justify the franchise paying out an extra few million dollars a year to find that one player who eventually makes it as something better than a replacement player. As to the first part, this ONLY helps the organization IF they are getting players signed that the COULD NOT sign before. Otherwise, they didn't need to pay them the extra money in the first place. If they would have signed with whoever drafted them because they have no leverage, we aren't improving our farms system anyway. That is entirely my point. I think you are looking at the entire pool of players are a potential benefit, but if we could have signed them anyway, that isn't a benefit. That is wasting money.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 12:53 PM) I am not sure where you keep getting this idea that it is a small pool. As pointed out earlier, it is most of the draft, and most of the Intl guys - that is the opposite of small. Many people would be affected by it. What I am focusing on is where the benefit to the team is, and what extra players you will get by doing this. What you are telling me is that there is a group of guys that you couldn't ordinarily bring in to the organization, but for the love of another $20k a year, they will come here, and not somewhere else. Now what we are looking for is guys the Sox could have drafted anyway, but didn't because they wouldn't sign with the team. If they could have drafted them, and they would have signed anyway, this extra $20k a year is immaterial. The easiest way to do this is through process of elimination. The first thing to do is get rid of the top bonus guys. They aren't affected, regardless. The extra money would be nice, but the signing bonus is what makes the difference for them. Corey Zangari wasn't signing here for an extra $20k a year. He wanted the half a million in bonus money. We weren't going to get away with offering him slot, and an extra $20k a year. The second group to get rid of is guys who slipped down the draft boards because they are looking for big money, but no one is willing to give it to them. Take a guy like De Oca a couple of years ago. This is the group that is looking for potentially way bigger money than this, another $20k annually isn't going to bring in guys like this. We are talking hundreds of thousands up front to get them. The third group to get rid of is intentional over-drafts. These have become more popular because of the new draft cap rules. Teams are drafting them because they have little to no leverage, and allow the team to go over slot in other areas. Guys like Hinchly and Glines this year, or Lechich and Ziznewski in 2014 fit here. They guys are taking huge haircuts on their slots and it doesn't matter if they were paid more or not. This is primarily your college seniors. They are going to sign for what they get, and they aren't going to really be able to change their draft position or risk alienating teams who could draft them because their options are limited. They can't go back to school, so they pretty much have to sign with whoever drafts them. The fourth group to eliminate is the guys who just aren't very good. Sure this would help them out a lot, as they don't get much money, but they are also the ones who are going to sign pretty much any deal they can get. And extra $20k to them is meaningless, because odds are they were going to sign anyway. They also probably aren't very good, otherwise they would have had more leverage over their signings. While you might be able to bring more of these guys in, but the odds of finding a major leaguer out of them is miniscule. Even smaller would be the odds of finding a good major leaguer worth spending an extra few million dollars a year for, which is really the goal here. There are plenty of garbage MLB players out there you can sign for $500k to $1 million a season. If you can sign a Gordon Beckham for $2 million, why spend $3 million a year in extra payroll to find another Gordon Beckham? As it stands now, the Sox draft and don't sign very few players. Usually if this happens, it is because of one of two things. #1, they were a reach to try to fit in, because they were going to have big bonus demands that the team wasn't going to be able hit, but for some reason they took the chance on them. #2 would be guys that are drafted for show. Think of the baseball academy guys here. Again, neither of this group is going to respond to this money. Group 1 wants WAY more money than this. Group 2 wasn't going to sign anyway. So what is left? I see two niches. #1, guys who you could have picked, but didn't, but that for $20k a year extra, they would have signed when they wouldn't before. Honestly, do you see many players fitting this niche? I don't. If you can see it, I'd love to hear some ideas of who and/or why. #2 Guys who you drafted and didn't sign, but an extra $20k would have done it. I have to imagine for group #2, if $20k were how far apart the team and player were, and the team really wanted them, they'd just give them the $20k and be done with it. Would a guy really have his mind changed by that little bit more? I suppose it is possible, but I don't see it at very realistic. Now I could MAYBE see this being a bit more possible in LatAm. $20k makes a much bigger difference down there with the poverty levels. But, again, you would have to eliminate all of the big bonus guys, as this little bit of money won't entice them. Do you think a guy like Vlad Jr signs here for the $20k a year extra? I don't. We have to be getting WAY down the list where the bonus considerations are so much smaller, that $20k a year makes a difference. Again, you are past the top levels of players by then. Using the White Sox signings this year, this program doesn't influence the Tatis and Reyes signings at all. In those cases, bonus money is everything. Vazquez at $300k? Probably if he wanted that, they probably would have added it up front. Maybe by the time you are in the $100k signings you could start to see a difference. If multiple teams are offering $100k, would $20k a year make a difference? Ok, I could see that. Under $100k, absolutely it would make a difference. But here is the thing, what is the talent level of those signings? If they were good ceilings, they would be getting bigger money from the other teams bidding. Now one thing LA has going for it is late bloomers, so the chances of finding a good player at this point is higher than in the American draft system. The players here are 16 years old, versus the 22 year olds you are probably seeing as UDFA's in the USA. This means the chances of a late growth spurt are higher. The chances of catching lightning are definately higher, but how high are they really? Are they worth an extra quarter of a million a year for LA alone, and an extra few million a year throughout the whole system? Eh, that I am not sure of.

QUOTE (Palehosefan @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 11:31 AM) I've been meaning to ask, what happened to Kap and Scenario? I used to work with Kap on websites a long time ago, and Scenario was my moderator on the Scout White Sox site before coming here. I miss seeing them around. Kap I know is really busy with work and family. I still talk to him regularly off line.

Herb Lawrence 15 hrs · 2005 White Sox only had 3 players that were drafted by the team on the World Series roster. Joe Crede, Aaron Rowand and Mark Buehrle