Dick Allen

QUOTE (scs787 @ Aug 15, 2014 -> 07:15 PM) Melo is getting 1/2 his money upfront.....Didn't even know teams could do that. http://online.wsj.com/articles/knicks-carm...ance-1408146976 It was never about the money.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Aug 15, 2014 -> 07:45 PM) Owners don't like to buy stadiums. They are a terrible investment. Owners are always threatening to leave if they don't get a stadium. It's time governments pull their bluff. I agree. The Sox aren't going anywhere. They were in the middle of the pack last year in revenue during a 99 loss season. There is no open market out there that could give them that except maybe Vegas, and that is an entirely different issue, or some teams would have moved by now.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 15, 2014 -> 05:15 PM) Fine but Hawk's criticism isn't that women aren't the equivalent athletes to men in baseball he's saying women would be scared of contact and aren't tough, dainty, not meant to get dirty, etc. What did you think of the Chrissy Pronger stuff 4 years ago?

QUOTE (knightni @ Aug 15, 2014 -> 01:50 PM) If new ownership took over in the next 10 years and wanted a new publicly funded stadium, would you support it? No. Enough with stadiums. They have plenty of money to build their own. Fix the schools and the pot holes. I had jury duty Monday at 26th and California. At lunch I walked a couple of blocks west on 26th to a taqueria. One pothole on my way there gave one car a flat. On my way back, 2 cars got a flat from the same pot hole. Obviously, I am simplifying things, but there are far more important things public funds need to be used for than building billionaires stadiums to make more money.

They did almost double the ratings yesterday than a typical Cubs or White Sox game.

I was all set to become a Brewers fan in 1986 or 1987 when they were going to leave. But now that they are in the NL, I would have to at least consider the Twins, but probably stick with the Brewers. It would be far less invested.

QUOTE (OsweGo-Go Sox @ Aug 15, 2014 -> 09:51 AM) I literally haven't said things like that since middle school, when I stopped, thought about it for a second, and realized how awful those things were to say. So you haven't said anything around your friends or just thought of things that if you actually said it to a woman, or if you are not heterosexual, a man, they wouldn't be at least as offended as they apparently are (although not one has stepped forward with the complaint as far as I can see) with Hawk's comments?

QUOTE (The Wiz @ Aug 15, 2014 -> 12:42 AM) So you are saying you've never said someone was a "p**sy" or "f*g" or told someone to drop their balls or get their panties out of a bunch, or said something was "gay?" If you haven't, I find that extremely hard to believe. I'm not saying that saying any of that stuff is right or wrong, but people have the right to say what they want and I'd say the vast majority of people who say these things do them out of jest/anger/ some sort of emotion and never mean to offend or have anything against any of the group's they may have offended with saying it. It is just something that has gone on with males for thousands of years. And I think you are definitely wrong, nothing is changing, the only thing is changing is the forums in which you can actually say what you feel and think are changing. Go to any school yard today and listen to the conversation of a group of boys and compare it to one of 30 years ago. Boys are still making fun of other boys, kids are still getting made fun of for doing things like a girl, etc. What also hurts your argument is that these groups that we are told are suppossed to be offended by making comments like this use those very terms in jest all the time. It's not uncommon for a girl to tell a man to stop wearing a skirt or get your panties out of a bunch. Or for homosexual people to call things gay, and so forth. If things were really changing, these groups wouldn't use those phrases and such anymore. Most of the time it is some white guy telling us that those people should be offended. I know you will get ripped for being a little over the top, but you bring up several good points. Many of the people who want to break out the pitchforks for Hawk say and do the same thing or even more "offensive" and don't think twice about it. There are avatars on this site that definitely objectify women. Where is the outrage? There's a Hot Babe thread in SLAM feature NSFW Kate Upton photos. In fact one poster here who said Hawk offended part of the fanbase and was senseless and stupid, posted he felt sorry for a stool some overweight girl in that thread was sitting on. Piling on Hawk is easy. Has even one woman complained about Hawk's comments? I will say this thread only has about 3 or 4 people actually complaining about Hawk's use of skirt.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 04:05 PM) Blackhawks have already backtracked on playing THE STRIPPER while they're doing the score-the-puck promo. Next, they're probably not going to have the "hot girl" go out there anymore along with the kids and Joe Schmo dude that gets booed for missing. Finally, they're changing the attire of their ice crew to make them a little more conventional/conservative. All responses to the fact that 38% of their fanbase is female and notices these type of things. It's just like the story with Land's End cross-promotion sending out complimentary GQ magazines to women and impressionable young kids with a half-naked model/actress on the front...sometimes you have to THINK first. While GQ isn't exactly porn, I could understand mothers of boys being upset, and then you can also find plenty of women simply citing the obvious inherent objectification of women issue. Are the Hawks going to get rid of the scantily clad Ice Crew? Doesn't seem they hire any average looking women for that job. How wrong.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 03:46 PM) Nor do I think it's a lack of political correctness, but this clip is going to make the rounds and it's going to confirm a lot of people's beliefs that this is a game for old men. Yet the NFL has fans who applaud guys who beat their fiances unconscious, call each other b****es and the n word. So no, that clip isn't going to confirm anything.

I wonder where the outrage was when Frank Thomas was being referred to as the Big Skirt.

QUOTE (BaconOnAStick @ Aug 11, 2014 -> 12:53 PM) Buddy Bell was on White Sox weekly and just hammered how impressed the org has been with the development of Rodon's change. They expected to have to do a lot more work on it than they apparently have to. If you take Buddy Bell at his word on White Sox prospects, there is no reason they won't be fielding an All Star team in a few years.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 12:48 PM) What if the ball isn't secured in the catcher's mitt...for example, it's a snowcone and sticking out of the top of the mitt? Or he's juggling the ball, etc? Then you're going to have situations where the runner's out if he makes contact with the catcher even though he dropped the ball. Well, I guess that's still better than the last couple of games in SF. Surprised it hasn't happened a LOT more than 9 times already this season. That alone would make me believe the rule's not being applied equally/appropriately by all the crews. I'm sure it's because managers are baseball people and calling a guy out on a play like yesterday isn't baseball. I'm not faulting Bochy for challenging, it may have won him the game, but I don't think 30 managers challenge that play. I don't think 10 do. To be honest if that happened with Posey catching and a Sox runner, I don't even think Soxtalk would have been up in arms if Robin didn't challenge it.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 12:43 PM) Or they're going to have to put a line across the 3B line something like 30 feet from the plate where basically the catcher CAN block the plate unless the runner's in his final 10 yards coming towards home. Even that, it could be tough to call, not unlike offsides in soccer...but it's a start I guess. Highly flawed rule. Some say they just want catchers to get used to the practice of not blocking the plate, and then they'll withdraw the rule again. The thing is, nobody's been really taken out like Buster Posey since that injury in 2011...at least no top-flight catcher. But really, how many collisions at the plate were really close plays? It seems to me the vast majority of them where guys who where out by 20 feet only having one option. Make that an automatic out and ejection and go back to playing how the game was played for over 100 years.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 12:32 PM) MLB is interpreting the rule, not umpires. So in essence you are appealing to the same people who interpreted the call in the first place. I would be kind of surprised if this was an even that was able to be protested. Replay guys are umpires and they interpreted the rule enough to reverse the call. My point is I am not protesting if he was physically blocking home plate, I would concede that. But why is it considered blocking the plate when a runner isn't present? I am sure the protest would be lost, but I think they have to explain the rules to everyone. Flowers says he knows it better than most and he doesn't understand it.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 12:32 PM) According to the rule, even if the runner's 75-80 feet away and just rounding 3B, he should automatically be awarded home if the catcher's impeding his straight line to home plate (without the ball). Then it gets even more confusing because a play at home was reversed by this same rule when the catcher was merely tagging home plate for a force out, because of the fact he was blocking the plate (which was kind of irrelevant, since it was a force-out)....and yet even with a force play, doesn't the baserunner deserve the right to have a clear path to reach home plate as quickly as possible? If that is the rule, you have got to teach guys to get into rundowns between 3rd and home and one throw towards home should get you the run.

QUOTE (Al Lopez's Ghost @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 12:09 PM) I would guess they'd call it a case of umpire judgement, which cannot be the subject of a protest. That might even be written in the rule. Obviously judgement calls cannot be protested, but interpretation of the rule can. That is what I would protest. I'm sure it would be a loser, but I bet action would be taken. For Flowers to be blocking the plate IMO the runner would have had to have been impeded, which I saw none of. Also, it is fine for him to block the plate if he had the ball. Since the guy was tagged out before he reached home, that is obvious. I just wonder at what point is standing where Flowers was standing considered blocking the plate? If the guy was at the plate, there is no question he was blocking it, but when does the clock start? When he reaches 3rd? 40 feet from home? No one seems to know. It seems to me standing where Flowers is standing should only be considered blocking the plate, when it affects the runner. Yesterday, it never did.

QUOTE (glangon @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 09:16 AM) I agree. I was surprised to see that the game wasn't played under protest at the end. It would have been the sensible way forward. I wonder if Parent / Ventura had even thought of that as an option with all that went on. To be frank, I didn't think about the protest until this morning when I was reading how no one really seems to know or interpret the rule correctly. And the White Sox are one of several teams that have been victimized by this. From now on, either send everyone and challenge or protest. Something has to be done. Right now getting caught in a rundown between 3rd and home should mean an automatic run. There is no way they a rundown can be executed without a fielder being in the baseline and therefore "blocking the plate". Just make them throw it home and you should be allowed to score.

I think the White Sox should have protested the game. Make MLB come out and say the rule was interpreted correctly.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 06:42 PM) That call means a lot to the Cardinals, Dodgers, Pirates and MAYBE the Braves. I guess if we finish with the 7th-10th pick in the first round of the draft, we can't/won't say it's a meaningless loss, either...just like the Cubs beating us head-to-head last year gets thrown out as the reason we now have Rodon and they got "stuck" with Schwarber instead of Rodon. The Sox did only score 1 so they would have had to shut them out or win in extra innings. I don't know if the bullpen was up to the task or not if that call wasn't overturned. Maybe Q could have finished it out if things didn't go haywire.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 06:40 PM) Technically it isn't meaningless for the Giants, who are in contention for the wild card. In fact, I think they are currently tied for the 2nd wild card spot with the Cardinals. That is true. SF still might have won, but that call changed things dramatically. At least the loss is no big deal. I was excited about replay, but a few things make it suck. The challenges take too long. Now any close play the manager comes out to stall so someone can check the call, adding even more downtime to a game desperate to rid itself of such, and I really had no idea how many calls there are that simply there isn't enough evidence to overturn.

QUOTE (JoshPR @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 06:19 PM) My problem with the rule is that it would been a close play that blanc had a fair chance of scoring or the blocking of the plate had an effect on him getting there then I can see it. But Blanco was out by 15 feet, he had no chance, that's what stinks about it. He got to score when he was not going to. Instead of the defense being rewarded it got penalized for a good play. I mean there should be situations when it's used, this one not so much. Yeah, I don't understand why it is blocking the plate if the runner is nowhere near the plate, and if he has the ball, he has to be able to get in front of the plate or there is a good chance the runner can avoid him. I am all for protecting catchers. But to me the vast majority of big collisions at the plate were guys who where out by 15 feet thinking their only chance was to barrel into the catcher, and hoping the ball was jarred loose. I don't even know if the rule was interpreted correctly today, but that play isn't baseball. It is really a shame that calls like that continue. Like the transfer rule, it needs to be changed now, not 2015. Today's game is really meaningless for the White Sox. That call changing a game in a game that really matters would be a disgrace.

Catchers automatically block the plate with a runner on 3rd. That has been put in their heads from day 1. One thing they could do is extend the area you can hit the plate with sort of like they do in softball. They will change the rule. Maybe even this play inspires the change. It looked to me like the umpire was embarrassed calling him safe and not because of a call reversal.

Personally I think Flowers did block the plate and Posey did not. What I don't get is by the time it could be interference Flowers had the ball. And the runner's path was never altered.

I was always undet the impression if Robin showed the fire the team would respond positively.