Dick Allen

Season ticketholders now get a 10% discount at Sports Depot and whatever they are calling Bacardi at the Park. It might not be much, but it is better than a kick in the jimmy.

JR and LaRussa are tight. There is no way the Sox give Rasmus big money. They could have had Rasmus for Edwin Jackson when they were desperate for a CF, but passed.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Mar 28, 2014 -> 06:32 AM) So who should we target then Dick? We're going to have a ton of money to work with next offseason and hopefully should a few key players away from being serious contenders (if all goes right this season). If you don't like Jimenez or Santana for 4 years and $50 million, and a second round pick I don't understand how you can like Masterson next year for significantly more money and a higher draft pick. See how this season goes. You don't have to have targets on free agents yet. I will say, one of the reasons I thought the Sox should target the above THIS year is the price tag. You will be giving up a lot more later for something similar both in money and draft pick. I liked Jimenez a little more than Santana, but it is funny that Don Cooper is a supposedly a genius, but if an expensive free agent pitcher signed this season, they certainly would bust. Hopefully the Sox young starters and Paulino are as good as some posters here think so it will be a non issue.

Masterson will be 30 next year. He has also been just as inconsistent as Santana and Jimenez, yet will cost more money, and a draft pick, perhaps even a first rounder.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 27, 2014 -> 02:53 PM) Jon Garland 2.0 IMO. Oh, you mean Jeff Marquez.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Mar 27, 2014 -> 01:48 PM) That is interesting... Not really. They will probably be playing with the extended spring training guys. They need to get some ABs before they play.

QUOTE (Hawkfan @ Mar 27, 2014 -> 02:00 PM) So lower prices to get more attendance doesn't mean more profits??? shocking Attendance was down yet again. When you lose 99 games and become an uninteresting team the first week of the season, with a fanbase full of excuses not to go to games anyway, like in 2012 when the team spent most of the summer in first place, many "just knew" it wouldn't last, so they didn't go to the games, you will hit rock bottom.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 03:46 PM) That IS his swing plane. There's no right now about it. He has a career GB% of 57.1% at the MLB level. I mentioned this a few months ago. His GB rate is one of a slap hitter.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Mar 27, 2014 -> 08:55 AM) Was in Seattle in 2012 when The King pitched, they did something similar and it was cool. I'm sure the logistics of selling based on Sale's day of pitching can be dealt with (if you pre-bought you're in, any unsold prior to a certain period get the deal could work). I just know it wasn't a robust crowd when I went to the Mariners game but that section was packed. Teams that lose 99 games should lose money. If you are bad in other business, you tend to lose money. $3 million isn't too bad of a hit, considering they made close to $20 million the year before. Supposedly, their TV ratings were second-worst in baseball.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 01:41 PM) We don't care at all how much money that JR has, it's just we're looking past that and dealing in reality. None of us know how much the Sox make, how much they have saved, ownership's ability or willingness to expand budget, balh blah etc. The reality is that there is a limit to how much the team is going to spend on payroll, and we have some frame of reference that tells us that our team is willing and able to be in the upper quarter when they feel it's necessary. This is PLENTY of information for us to like or not like deals based on financials. You can wish JR would spend endlessly if you like, but it isn't going to happen. There IS a ceiling, it's a reasonable ceiling, and therefore we don't like s***ty deals that waste money because we know there's a limit. The morality of that is completely separate from the analysis and interpretation of the deals that happen to the team. Marty's kindergarten logic dictates that we should sign overpriced players because JR should have enough money to continue throwing money at problems anyway DESPITE the fact that there is no precedent for this type of behavior. But we know that he WON'T continue to throw money at problems anyway, and therefore we should NOT sign overpriced players. Marty deals in Martyland, the rest of us are dealing in reality. Again, in the Abreu thread, you said if he was a bust, $60 million wasn't going to harm the team. At least be consistent. The fact that the Sox were in on Tanaka tells you all you really need to know about their finances. Apparently JR WAS WILLING TO THROW MONEY AT HIS PROBLEMS. He threw $68 million at Abreu and in total was probably willing to go twice as much for Tanaka.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 02:10 PM) Veal being the 2nd LHP in pen tells me we really have 1 in Downs right now. I do not have any faith in Veal at all. Veal was great in 2012 and his last several appearances, from the beginning of August on last year where lights out. Cooper was talking about him the other day, raving.

There is always one guy they will never let win. Melton 2 years ago, Kittle last year. I'm sure Farmio is looking at zero victories.

Maybe he can DH. He has walked every time he has batted in the major leagues. Once.

When the Sox trained with AZ, they seemed to make a lot of deals with them. Maybe the same will eventually happen with the Dodgers. For some reason, I think the Sox will wind up with a couple of these high priced Dodger veterans some day for a fraction of what they are paid.

How many times will Hawk win by a nose?

This board is so concerned with JR checking account balance. I just wonder, what if the Yankees or Dodgers needed a 1st baseman and Abreu's price went up, what would have been the cutoff money-wise before his current can't miss, can't wait to see him in the middle of the line up would have change to the "he's never faced a pitch in the major leagues, he's not worth it, maybe when the team is a little better you could spend the money".

QUOTE (raBBit @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 10:34 AM) Are you implying when KW or JR said it they were saying it with hopes that Boyer and the marketing team would pick it up? It's the market department's decision. I am sure JR has insight or the last word, but it's the marketing team's responsibility to pick the slogan. Let's not nitpick. Yes, but upper management used the slogan when they signed the players. Winning Ugly in 1983 was from an opposing manager. If your ownership says they are all in, all in isn't a bad marketing theme. If they used the slogan and upper management has final say anyway, just because you don't like Brooks Boyer shouldn't be reason to blame him if you don't like the slogan.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 10:26 AM) That's Brooks Boyer not JR. Actually, I think it was KW or JR who initially said they were "all in" when Dunn signed and PK and AJP came back. The marketing department ran with it.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 08:42 PM) Dayumm. A Tsunami takes place and I'm not part of it. Anyway, only OCFs think more college=better NBA. GTFO. College basketball is pathetic and the coaches try to make it all about them. #COLLEGEBASKETBALLSUCKS!!! According to you the Bulls who are one of the top seeds in the East, play at least 82 meaningless games a year. I don't know what else you need to show the NBA currently sucks.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 03:25 PM) But not going to college at all definitely didn't hurt LeBron or Tracy McGrady or Kobe Bryant, and sticking around 1 year didn't seem to hurt Kevin Durant, Carmelo Anthony, and Dwyane Wade. Meanwhile, Nick Collison and Kirk Hinrich both played 4 years at Kansas, so talent evaluators should have had them pegged perfectly, yet neither has been much more than a bit player throughout their careers. There will always be hits and misses, and some guys are ready to go early, but if a guy is ready to be a good player out of HS, or after his freshman year, he still should be ready to be a really good player after a second college season, or IMO he was a fraud to begin with. (Assuming no injury)

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 03:10 PM) That's definitely a flaw. That said, the counterpoint would be how much better guys like Durant, Beasley, Oden, Melo ect. could get in their second year of college. It does make sense when you think about it. They're facing better competition, they're playing more games, there's no limits on how much you can practice, you can see coaches in the off-season without it being a violation, ect. Some of them are. Some are riding pine, getting limited minutes and once the NBA season starts, not getting much practice time in. Sticking around a couple years or more didn't hurt Hakeem or Jordan or Magic or Bird. I don't think they would have been much better had they turned pro after they were freshman. Obviously this increases the chances of an NBA team not making a mistake, and that is what is all about, but there are a ton of underclassmen who make themselves eligible for the draft that never get drafted. This could ultimately help the college game as well. It will cost some players some money, but if they can play, they will eventually get paid.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 02:58 PM) Well this is incredibly relevant to the discussion then http://deadspin.com/marcus-smart-did-the-r...t-go-1546498463 Yeah, but aren't the one and done guys usually better players to begin with than the 2 year guys? The problem with the study is they can't study the same players doing different things.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 02:40 PM) What's wrong with LLRLR? Breaking up the lefties equally. In the end, it won't matter.

L, R, L, R, L. When a team does face 2 lefty starters in a row, if they kept this together, the second guy would always be Chris Sale. Personally, to me, it doesn't matter if they split them up. Having a couple of LOOGYs to flip hitters makes a lot of sense, but I really think facing 2 or 3 or 4 lefty starters in a row doesn't suddenly give you an advantage unless they aren't very good.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 12:34 PM) It is crazy, on the otherhand, people are going to go crazy for his first 3 years production and deal with years 7 and 8 when they deal with it. I'm not sure why Scherzer should care about that though. Tigers have spent like crazy for talent, but Scherzer should take a team friendly deal? $24 million a year for 6 years for a pitcher over 30 isn't exactly team friendly. Just wait and see what they are going to have to pay Cabrera when he is 40 years old and the gout won't let him run to first base.