Pants Rowland

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Jul 30, 2017 -> 10:25 PM) Nooooo, we had a GM during that time, a fella as I mentioned earlier named Ron Schueler. Should think I wouldn't have to remind your prescient mind about him, Dick, but apparently I do, and I already did in a post prior to this knee-jerk rant against me, but whatever. Do us all a favor and put the "evil Thad Bosley comments" that you are now railing against to rest by presenting Ron Schueler's statements in 1997 about what "wasn't available and for what cost" at that deadline that caused the team's course of action then. I find that one key point is always left out of discussions about this trade. While it proved to be a PR nightmare, and the ultimate return on investment was disappointing, that team was NOT good! It was at the end of that core's window to compete and the cracks had been showing for some time. Ventura's injury further accelerated the decline. In fact, many outside the meatball fan base may say the window had closed in 1995 when Cleveland started its 5 year run of dominance in the AL Central. Yes, the Sox were only 3.5 games back, but it was clear who the class of the division was. My opinion is it would have taken one of those crazy 25 wins out of 30 games type of runs to not only overtake Cleveland, but also keep them down through season's end. They ultimately woke up and not only won the division, but also took the pennant and damn near the series. Cleveland was a lot like the 2017 Cubs. They got a little fat and full of themselves, and the league figured out a few ways to get their them out from time to time, but it was only a matter of time before they flipped the switch. The fact is, while the trade raised eyebrows as a surrender, the post strike venom for JR is what really fueled the negative campaign that ensued. The local press seized the opportunity to bury JR and the Sox, and it wasn't until 2005 that it appeared to finally be water under the bridge. But, sure enough, someone felt the need to dust off this so called surrender story. I can't believe someone thought to start a 20 year anniversary thread. Please stop, people.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 14, 2017 -> 12:01 AM) Figured I'd post this in the Cub thread. ... So the Cubs acquire Q. I actually believe I posted a while back, if not I certainly thought it, that the Cubs actually could really use Q this season. Bear with me on this. They are having a fairly rotten first half, but are only a couple games behind a Brewers team not ready for prime time. The Cubs may be a bit worn down after playing all those games last year, but they certainly need a jolt to wake up what after last season was deemed a potential dynasty. Now if Q builds on that recent 10-strikeout outing and is effective, he could really ignite that team and get its act together to storm past a pretender Milwaukee team and stay ahead of a not-so-great Cardinals team. My question is ... if Q is excellent and is one of the reasons they wake up and win their division and win the WS again, does that make this trade rather dumb on the Sox part? I mean in helping the Cubs win another title? I realize the guy the Sox got could be a legendary hitter for the Sox someday (oops is his agent Boras too?). But, IF this propels the Cubs to a repeat title and the fact the Cubs own the city already, would that make this trade ill advised? Remember, a Cubs repeat title would again bury the Sox in terms of local and national attention and make them an afterthought compared to the darling Cubs. So IF this helps the Cubs win the crown, will u be quite upset with Hahn or not? No. I wanted Rick Hahn to get the best value for Quintana and continue to bolster the quality and quantity of the farm system. If 1-2 of the players the Sox received in return prove to be formidable major league players within the next 2-3 years, I couldn't care less. Also, it makes no sense to limit your options for trading partners, especially when there are only 29 total candidates. The more business relationships you have, the more successful your organization will be. That goes for baseball and beyond. I believe Rick Hahn saw an opportunity to get a team to overpay compared to the other offers out there. The concern over the Brewers stepping into the Quintana talks motivated Epstein to deliver the best offer. I think it was a smart move for the Sox today. It will just take longer to see if it proves fruitful for the Sox, no matter what the Cubs and Quintana do in the short term.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Jun 24, 2017 -> 09:29 AM) Where can I find the penis thread? Asking for a friend?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 06:15 PM) A pitcher of Chris Sale's caliber, at his age, with his contract situation has basically almost never been traded before. Johan Santana trade to the Mets is the only one that comes to mind, but they had to sign him to a market deal still. That was a pretty good haul they got at the time.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 16, 2016 -> 02:32 PM) Jim Kirk ‏@kirkjim12 1h1 hour ago Sox' Williams refuses to discuss Chris Sale trade rumors http://bit.ly/2fDJMtE via @suntimes It's KW. Give him time and he'll talk.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 16, 2016 -> 09:39 AM) But are you willing to bet your house on it? I'll bet his house.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 16, 2016 -> 09:19 AM) There is a reason why we joke about you and betting houses. Mostly because you are almost always wrong when you make predictions. I'm sorry, but it is pretty obvious to me that Greg is one of 3 things: -The best troll on this site -7 years old -an intellectual man boy I am not sure why anyone continues to respond to this farce.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 16, 2016 -> 02:03 AM) http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ed-klein-...1/15/id/759037/ This article by Ed Klein basically argues that HRC lost primarily because she failed to listen to her husband's political instincts, and Mook/Podesta/pollsters/Cheryl Mills/Huma Abedin tuned him out as well. https://www.yahoo.com/news/ohio-state-stude...-160111812.html Tackling public speakers at universities in the name of "defending Trump" isn't going to go over very well. Realistically, John Kasich might be the only Republican right now that would be able to achieve a modicum of "moderate/independent" support, and that's if you concentrate specifically on his last 5-10 years and not his entire history in government (which is much more conservative, especially on values touched by religious or spiritual belief). No way it could be Ted Cruz. Kasich is also appropriate because he understands more than anyone what's going on with those Rust Belt/Obama voters more than anyone as a governor. I agree about Kasich. A lot of liberals I know bristle when I mention him as being moderate and an acceptable alternative for both sides, but if something like this happens, there would have to be a compromise and it would have to happen quickly. I have also heard Mitt Romney as an alternative, but he is a bit tainted. The other name I heard floated is Susana Martinez of New Mexico. She is GOP with executive experience from a purple state and could get enough support from both sides of the aisle to encourage enough electors (DJT and HRC) to vote faithlessly and give her the 270 outright. I have to learn more about her, but quick glace at her pedigree makes her sound intriguing. EDIT: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix...h-donald-trump/ Maybe Martinez is not the right choice here.

OK, diving into the deep end without a life preserver here. I barely post but I want to hear what you traditional GOP supporters think. I believe we are falling deeper into a crisis that will threaten our national security in the not so distant future. True patriots in Congress would be making a noble sacrifice to intercede and publicly call for electors in those states Trump won to either abstain from voting or cast their votes for another candidate, possibly one in particular. I am pretty confident it could not be HRC, but I believe supporting a third candidate not named Trump or Pence would stave off a true national nightmare even if there is public unrest in the short term. The chaos ensuing in the transition right now appears to be the tip of the iceberg for the next 4 years. I also do not believe Pence would be a good choice due to his extreme views and affiliation with Trump, but if leaders from both sides met to select a more moderate minded Republican, it could be a compromise to keep people from rioting and set a good example to the American people on the need for compromise and reconciliation. I'll hang up and listen to your thoughts.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 13, 2016 -> 05:39 AM) Pants, I think the biggest danger right now is Pence as president. Actually, PT Trump has pressure on him from all sides...he's caught in a three-way pincers between the Ryan/future GOP, all those disaffected blue collar workers in the Rust Belt, WV, Indiana and North Carolina, and basically everyone else in the country who's not a white male. Already, they're planning this huge Women's March on Washington the day after the inauguration on January 21st. There's also the Trump University lawsuit to deal with if it's not settled before November 28th and the big KKK march planned for December 3rd in North Carolina. He doesn't disavow that like the state GOP has already done and he's already going to be foundering. Then you have the NAACP protest for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday before the inauguration. Not only that, but every liberal is pointing out the 450,000 vote spread in the popular vote...the number of Stein and Johnson voters and the fact that spread could easily end up close to the 1.2 million to 1.5 million in total margin after all of California is added. http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/...-htmlstory.html 63.5 million to 62 million....that's 50.6% to 49.4% head to head, well over 1% Garland is dead in the water...and so is the Trans Pacific Trade Agreement. I couldn't agree more with respect to Pence. And I know my suggestion of Garland approval is a head scratcher. My thought is widespread protests, 2 years of Trump and a constant filibuster led by the Warren/Sanders portion of the Senate could help push the GOP to make a compromise up front and then go back to their ways once things are settled down a bit. Pence would have to step aside as part of that compromise. The thing that scares many about Trump is the level of control he is clearly granting Pence right now. If you give them a few concessions on the legislative front, and guarantee they still get a GOP presidency as long as it is someone more moderate, it could help them preserve their party better. The fact is they lost this election on many fronts. It's just that Trump's win in the EC overshadows the number of losses.

I am just some dummy with a laptop that can't sleep, but I am noticing some things about the dialogue over the last few days that got me thinking. Anyway, I never post in here, but this s*** is gnawing at me, so here goes. Leading up to the election, everyone wanted it over. Since it ended, the dialogue continues and people are taking to the streets in protest. People are pissed at Trump being rewarded for hate speech and outright lies. Further, once again the system in place gave the presidency to someone that came second in the national vote. Through all of this anger and protest, though, I am hearing something a little different and encouraging. People with as diverse ideologies as Glen Beck, Bill Maher, and Van Jones are questioning the way we deal with each other. How we end friendships, both virtual and real, based on political ideology. There is more calling for reengagement and understanding than I have seen in years. Which got me thinking. What if everyone's overall preelection wish came true? What if we woke up on January 20, and neither Trump nor Clinton was sworn in as president? How could this happen? 1. The disaffected and outraged voters continue to protest in increasing numbers and calling for the electoral college to withhold votes for Trump 2. Enough pressure is placed to raise uncertainty about the faithfulness of the state electors commitment to vote for Trump on 12/19 2. Democratic party leaders intercede to quell the crowds and engage in direct dialogue with GOP leaders to find a solution 3. A compromise is reached to deny Trump the presidency but maintain GOP control of the Executive and Legislative Branches for the next 2 years. It would likely lead to more protests, but maybe not as bad as some might think. The support really was not there for Trump to begin with. His votes were based less on his appeal and more on what people saw as the lesser of two bad choices. So, the compromise that might calm things down and help get us to start healing that national divide? -Either Merrick Garland is confirmed to the supreme court, or a bipartisan commission is formed to fill the last seat. Both parties agree to abide by the recommendation of the committee and confirm the selection unanimously via voice vote. -The GOP agrees to withdraw Trump-Pence from consideration and instead selects a moderate ticket, possibly including John Kasich. The Dems agree not to object -The Dems agree to participate in a bipartisan review/reform of the Affordable Care Act within the next 2 years. The GOP agrees not to vote to abolish it anymore, and the Dems agree to withhold a filibuster on the vote to modify it. -GOP agrees to maintain the current rules of the Senate, in effect keeping the filibuster in tact. However, you would actually have to filibuster, not just threaten it every time someone doesn't like something. -The electoral college is abolished. This one may be tougher to tack onto the compromise, but the Dems should push for it. People are pissed and it is only going to get worse if this happens again. Heck, the fact that it has happened twice in 5 elections should illustrate its flaws You may ask, "Pants, you idiot, why the F would the GOP compromise if they are already in control?" First off, Trump is not one of them and his clear incompetence and inexperience is potentially a danger to our national safety. Further, the folks he is considering to run his administration are not necessarily the favored sons and daughters of the current GOP, either. Next, you can only screw over the electorate so much for so long. I also see a boiling over of emotion right now. People are beyond dissatisfied with the current system. What's worse is they are not only blaming the politicians and media, but they are also taking it out on friends, family and neighbors. This will only get worse if the two sides don't abandon the policy of obstruction and conflict. If the party leaders meet and find some common ground, it could hopefully lead to a cooling off and redirection off this awful path of self destruction we are on. We need to get back to leadership via compromise on K Street to set the right example for us on Main Street. Climbing off soap box now. If you read this, I appreciate you. Something's gotta give, though.

Anyone post this yet? http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/congratul...r-it-1788527356

QUOTE (shipps @ Nov 3, 2016 -> 09:17 AM) Oh I dont know, maybe there wont be so much petty hatred back and forth for the others team? Its healthy to not be so bitter and have so much hate, I would think. I was cheering against them as hard as anyone but I'm glad that I dont hate them to the point that I am sitting here bitter all day. To each is own and if that is how some Sox fans are going to be thats their choice but I am relieved I dont have those feelings today. I actually have had some really nice interactions with Cub fans this morning. They werent rubbing anything in my face, they were just over joyed and relieved. I am with you on this. I was not cheering for them, but I woke up rested today and ready to deal with adult life. I can still do without the excessive hyperbole and superlatives that comes with everything Cub related, but it really is no big deal in the big picture. They will get the city's attention more now than ever, and deservedly so. The Sox will not cease to exist just because the Cubs won. They just need to do better and be ready to catch the next wave. These things have always gone in cycles and this is no exception. And I agree with you, there is always a tool or two in the crowd, but overall it seems to be a pure expression of joy from their fans rather than a moment to rub it in to the Sox.

Some great moments in this montage. Rooney's call of that grounder to Konerko to secure the pennant still gets me more than anything in that whole postseason. Something about hearing "The White Sox have won the pennant!" chokes me up to this day. Despite being in a daze, there was also something so fresh and gratifying about it. It was the validation of such a special season for all of us.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 05:28 PM) The poor 1998 Chicago Fire will forever be disrespected The last Chicago Fire took place in 1871, brah

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:23 PM) Initial bet was $2,000 money line on the Giants, it was at -135 to start, so $2,000 to win $1481.84 When it was 3-0, the line was +1200 for the Giants. I was on tilt and bet another $2,000 because I just didn't believe they would go quietly. So that bet was $2,000 to win $24,000. All in all I made $29,481.84 edit: gotta subtract out the $4k investment so $25,481.84 Did you have to sign anything for tax purposes?

#FlyTheL

QUOTE (dpd9189 @ Sep 28, 2016 -> 05:48 PM) I think this news means one of two things 1. The whole "soft landing" for Robin that's been discussed by many and probably the odds on favorite to happen. Sox say they want him back, he says he wants to do something else and leaves on his own accord. Will probably remain with the club in some type of role. However I don't understand the need to do this, it's not like the Sox would be not retaining a great manager and Robin is a big boy so I don't understand why they'd try not to hurt his feelings. Probably the most likely outcome but completely unnecessary. 2. The Sox have decided to go in to total rebuild mode and want one of their own to manage the rebuild, few reasons for this. First off the Sox job with a total rebuild isn't really an ideal job, many candidates don't want to take over a team that is going to struggle for a few years with no promise of when this team will be good again and IF that person will still be here. Also for as great as the Cubs rebuild went, they struck out with Dale Sveum who apparently didn't mesh with the Cubs young kids. The Sox FO knows Robin and know he'll do what they say without a fight and run the rebuild how they want it. I actually considered the second scenario to some extent as well. No reason to fire a manager when the influx of talent they are building at the lower levels is still a bit of time away. Keep RV on the cheap for another year or so until the true deadline for a decision on the manager arrives. With that said, I'd be curious to hear the opinion of the MiLB junkies on this site as to how far the farm system has come in the past few years. I am encouraged by the more positive postings and feedback on the lower levels. Should we expect a true renaissance of the farm system. Has there been noticeable change and improvement over the past 3-5 years in Sox scouting, signings, and player development? If so, do RH and/or KW deserve credit for this anticipated improvement? If yes, is it possible the Sox are just trying to buy a little more time until the true plan comes to fruition? I'll hang up and listen for your answers. Thanks.

QUOTE (whitesoxjr27 @ Sep 21, 2016 -> 01:11 PM) 'We Got the Fire' is an anthem for Cubs' postseason. We got the goat is more like it. Is that similar to You Got the Touch?

I seriously believe at the end of the day, they need to win one, get the celebration over with, and the STFU. I used to hate and root against them. I can now honestly say I am very indifferent while also respecting the ownership/management commitment to building long term success up and down the system. With that said, the best thing that can happen if/when they win one, is they either become like the Red Sox where the rest of the world finally realizes how annoying and douchey their broader fan base truly is, or they start another 108 year futility streak. Either way, something's gotta give. The constant agony, wait 'til next year, it's gonna happen, flythew, Bartman, 1969, etc. stuff has to end. Please!

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Sep 13, 2016 -> 04:41 PM) You mean an ace Sale's age AND an ace with the type of team-friendly contract he has and the years left of control? Don't know if that example exists. The flaw I see here is the idea that the Sox would get seasoned major league talent in return. That is probably the only way they could play well enough to turn fans heads in April/May 2017, resulting in significant attendance growth over the ensuing months. A trade of Sale may include 1-2 MLB ready players talent-wise, but they will likely have growing pains at best, and several of the new players will also turn out to be busts. That may entice hardcore fans to tune in more, but not enough to make up for the loss of Sale or the disappointment of 2016. MLB attendance is typically driven by prior year performance, and the Sox will not be the exception to that rule.

QUOTE (whitesoxjr27 @ Sep 8, 2016 -> 09:26 AM) https://theringer.com/chicago-cubs-world-se...c4f9#.ut5ohsk1e That was a pretty solid article. If most Cubs fans were like that guy, I would take the plunge and cheer for them this post season.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Apr 13, 2016 -> 01:56 PM) Yes. The White Sox let him have his "Religious Freedom" night or whatever the hell it was last year hosted at US Cellular by a bigot. He's a weirdo. I'm glad he's gone. Wait, I never heard this one. Please elaborate.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 13, 2016 -> 08:28 AM) I am glad I am not the only one wondering why I read that. There was nothing of substance in there. Even the stuff about Bangkok was glossed over with no real detail or insight. The thing we all want to know about is the conversations between Kenny and Adam, and there is zero in there on it. Not even a note that it was asked, and LaRoche didn't wanto to talk about it. Um, thanks? QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 13, 2016 -> 08:30 AM) That might be the biggest gem in the story. I think the story was definitely a lot shorter than it could have been, particularly with the "what will you do about Bangkok now that you are retired?" question left unasked. However, to say he didn't care about baseball seems like a fairly simplistic interpretation of his comment. I am glad he's gone, but I think this article illustrated that maybe everyone is being a bit unfair to all sides in this controversy. Baseball was important to him and his family, but he was having doubts about his priorities. He might not have played again after this season anyway. All it took was one little nudge from the Sox, and he carefully made a tough decision. Based on prior posts, I suspect you +/- 40 years old. Don't you ever have similar thoughts when it comes to your career and family? Do you not care about whatever you do for a living just because it is not your top priority anymore? If your boss said that s/he had to change policy and it impacted your lifestyle choices, wouldn't you consider quitting AND still possibly harbor no ill toward the company. Circumstances change all around. Sometimes there are new co-workers that have a different perspective on how to optimize performance. Sometimes, too much failure makes management think some changes need to be made. Sometimes, you wake up and realize "screw this grind, I need to make a change." To me, that is what seemed to happen with the Sox and LaRoche. They wanted to try something a little different and it did not work for him so he decided to move on.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Feb 29, 2016 -> 11:28 AM) The internet due to it being a beacon of anonymity, allows people to say whatever abhorrent s*** they want. A lot of those idiots online would piss their pants saying some of the racial s*** they do in front of real people. My stare alone strikes fear into the white devils' hearts and I'm a pretty nice guy. I like you. Then again, you've never stared at me, either. Have you?!