Dick Allen

Boston gave Dustin Pedroia a $575k bonus as a 2nd rd. pick in 2004. The Sox selected Fields, Whisler, Lumdsen,Gio, and Lucy ahead of him giving everyone but Lucy more money. Lucy got $525k. Pedroia's career WAR is only 29 less than the collective WAR of every White Sox draft pick since 2001.add Ellbury who was given $170k less than Lance Broadway a couple of spots lower in their draft,and the 2 of them add up to only 6 less WAR than the collective WAR of every player the White Sox have drafted since 2001. Thank God Sale dropped down to the Sox or it would have been worse. KW said he could have had a good minor league system had he wanted. If you are implying it is just as simple as throwing more money at it, just look at the major league team. Throwing more money at it did not make them better. You have to select the correct players. I have given many examples of players who signed for slot who were much better players than the players selected by the Sox.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 9, 2014 -> 07:50 PM) I'll give you one thing. Even when it is there in print, you never admit you are wrong. Even when the GM himself said it, it didn't matter, let alone all of the sources. deny, deny, deny. I am not denying anything. Google mlb signing bonus. Click on the angelfire link. They have the bonuses for this decade. I have researched and shown you just some of the stars the Sox passed on to pay inferior players more money. Maybe you can show me the players they would have selected had they allocated more money. I am sure you will not. I suppose if KW wanted a good farm system he would have drafted guys like Ellbury, Pedroia, Wright, Jones, Trout, Cain, but he didn't so we get Fields, Lucy, Ring, Honel, Broadway, for MORE money.My examples are guys that were drafted soon after they White Sox made a dud of a pick and were signed for slot money. Pretty straight forward. Besides, if you look at the guys who were paid way over slot, many didn't work out. The guy thought Jeff Marquez was Jon Garland. He thought Tyler Flowers was a stud. He compared Jon Gilmore to Joe Crede. Traded a pretty valuable trading piece for a bust of a prospect in Nestor Molina who he thought was starring in Winter Ball when he wasn't. The reason the minor league system was bad was certainly not money.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 9, 2014 -> 07:23 PM) Not for one year. For years. Again, go ahead and look up their draft spending totals. Tell me where they ranked on minor league spending vs the rest of baseball during those years. Just like always, when proven wrong, you change the subject, hence all of the single examples trying to act like the truth isn't the truth. The Sox didn't spend on the draft, and instead put the money into the major league team. Example? How about this article for one, which incidentally was the first google hit under "white sox draft spending" SOX RANKED LAST IN DRAFT SPENDING FROM 2007-2011 http://taurussports.net/davids-blog/2014/1...t-spending.html Also the White Sox spent $34 million less on the draft than the Pirates from 2007 to 2011 http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06...-baseball-draft graphic of draft spending in 2011 from fangraphs http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/visualizing...draft-spending/ From 2007 to 2011, the Sox spent $3 million less than any other team in baseball on the draft. http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/...and-51-million/ 2008 saw the Sox spending only $300,000 in the international market, good for 22nd overall http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/38782-2008-...-international/ Now, what was that you were saying? Once again nothing. They missed on a ton of players. I pointed that out. Go back to the drafts and look at the bonuses. Google it. Angelfire has a link for every year. Overall, they may have spent little, but that is because they signed guys for slot. The first few rounds, the spending wasn't that different from other teams. They actually had 4 picks before Dustin Pedroia and Clay Bucholtz. They gave Fields, Lumsten. Whisler, All more money than Boston gave future MVP Pedroia. was selected in the second round. Ellsbury and Garcia were pick in the first round after Broadway and signed for less money. Mike Trout was $15,000 more expensive than jared Mitchell. Adam Jones was available and signed for less than Brian Anderson. Matt Cain was picked just after Royce Ring. Dan Haren and David Wright together got less bonus money than the Sox paid Kris Honel. Don't let the facts stop you.they pick a couple of the alternitives, just a couple, a lot is different. But it was miss, miss, miss. They scary thing is some people think these guys are going to pick a stud in the second round. History says probably not.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 9, 2014 -> 06:27 PM) These discussions all happened while these players were being drafted. Nitpicking an example here or there doesn't change the spending realities. Go look up the White Sox spending numbers for their drafts and get back to me as to where they compared to the rest of MLB. Go ahead. That is for the entire draft because they didn't spend $2-3 million on a 3rd round or later pick. They were usually right around slot I have examples of poor selections and proof there were plenty of other better players that they could have signed even cheaper.Please provide me a link of the White Sox saying they were just selecting guys to trade. There is a reason a 35 year employee lost his job in 2007, and your boy KW, didn't think it had to do with bonuses. I know you won't provide any links or proof of your position. You never do. The only thing I expect is some smart ass answer, but the proof is in the pudding. The White Sox minor league system was epically bad. No one wanted that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 9, 2014 -> 04:51 PM) I'm sure you will ignore it again, but you damned well know that Williams went cheap on the drafts to put money into the major league team for quite a long time. Says they guy who thinks KW can do no wrong. HIS DRAFTS WERE AWFUL, AND THE SOX PAID THE PRICE. Jared Mitchell was $15,000 cheaper than Mike Trout. If you go back to that draft, there were a lot of scouts who thought the Sox would take Trout. That is one example. This isn't about being cheap. This was about poor selection. There were players who received smaller bonuses that guys like Broadway and have had decent careers. 3 consectutive years without a 7 collective WAR? If that is what he had in mind, if that was the plan, it was a dumb plan. No team that cannot spend $1 if they only have $.50 can not let that eventually get them. Wes Whistler and Josh Fields and Tyler Lundsen got a lot more money than Dustin Pedroia. Donny Lucy taken a couple of picks before Dustin got $50k less. Lanc Broadway signing bonus $1.57 million Jacoby Ellsbury drafted later that round $1.4 million bonus. Matt Garza had eve a smaller bonus. Every player draft after McCoullough who made the major leagues received a smaller bonus than the $1 million he was paid. It wasn't about the money. Excuses are for failure. The draft this century with very few exceptions, has been a rather large failure.the White Sox knew it wasn't about money. It is why they fired Duane Schaefer in 2007. The players being selected were not good enough.it is improved some since that happened, but that improvement really is one player, Chris Sale.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Feb 9, 2014 -> 04:33 PM) I think some of this is true. He elected to put most of his budget to the MLB team so he took chances on guys he could sign for a low price. So in essence I think he did draft if not bad at least lower talented guys on purpose. He knew he couldn't afford the top tier. This is part of the reason I think the drafts will change as everyone will be limited in budget with slotting so the Sox will not be hurt as much. I don't agree, and again, this is just not first round. They had 3 consecutive years they didn't have a collective 3 career WAR their entire draft.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Feb 9, 2014 -> 03:41 PM) But not necessarily WAR just with the White Sox, right? Because we traded tons of minor leaguers, so their WAR with the White Sox would be expected to be low. It's the WAR of Sox draftees throughout all of the teams they end up with that would really show how crappy KWs draft classes were (which they were). Right. It is every pick. The 14.2 in 2004 in fact is basically all Gio, and none of it is with the White Sox. His drafts were beyond awful. But the trading of prospects as a knock was BS as well. Gio, Hudson for a short time, were really the only guys who where worth a damn. Overall, KW got more than he gave.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Feb 9, 2014 -> 03:30 PM) Is the White Sox column WAR with the White Sox or WAR in all of MLB for those players? The IPad screwed up the columns. The first number is the collective WAR of the White Sox draft picks that year. The second is the average collective WAR per team that year.

Here is where KW f***ed up. It had nothing to do with trading prospects, it had everything to do with the prospects he drafted: WArR by draft class Year. White Sox Avg. Per team 2001 10.4. 17.0 2002 5.1. 19.0 2003 8.4. 14.2 2004 14.2 12.8 2005. 2.3. 15.5 2006. 2.5. 10.5 2007. 2.0. 5.7 2008. 8.9. 4.3 2009. -0.7. 4.4 2010. 12.1. 1.6 2011. 0.1. 0.4 2012. 0.0. 0.1 2004 although the Sox had 7 picks in the first 89, the WAR is all Gio. 2008 is Beckham and Hudson, 2010 is Sale and Reed. Other than those years, the Sox entire draft has been below average. Also Joe Crede in 2006 was the last home grown hitter to post a 3.0 WAR for the White Sox. Since then, they average team has had 7 of those players. No hitter from the White Sox 2001-7 draft classes has ever posted a 2 WAR season for the Sox. KW's claim that he could have had a top farm system if he wanted is ludicrous, unless he was drafting bad players on purpose.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Feb 7, 2014 -> 02:36 PM) I’m curious what the wording in the contract looks like and if there’s actually something in there that says the Cubs *can’t* block their view. If it just says they have to give the Cubs some percentage of their income and their income drops to 0 because of the signs, should the Cubs really care? I'm sure it doesn't, but to me that doesn't make it OK. If there was no contract, to me it would be fine. There is money put into these businesses with the assumption they will have access to a product for many more years. If the Cubs take that away and make their business worthless, if I'm on that jury, they are going to pay. Obviously it scares the Cubs they would lose because attorneys' fees defending a lawsuit wouldn't probably cost as much as the paid Scott Baker.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 7, 2014 -> 12:38 PM) @ChrisCotillo: Despite some talk in baseball back-circles about the #WhiteSox being interested in Ervin Santana, doesn't seem to be anything serious. White Sox sign Ervin Santana would have been the greatest thread in Soxtalk history.

QUOTE (Knuckles @ Feb 7, 2014 -> 10:23 AM) What's a good Bulls jersey to buy going forward ? Everyone will have a DRose, and the other players come and go. Be different. Go old school. Kornel David is the jersey you want. Good ole' #18.

There have only been 2 times it has gone at least 4 days without snowing this winter. It gets close to 20 tomorrow, but we get some more snow, then cold. It's been below zero more times this winter than the past 5 combined. When is this crap going to end?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 7, 2014 -> 06:27 AM) said no one ever You can at least watch The Big Bang Theory, and some are really good IMO. I don't know how anyone gets through an episode of How I Met Your Mother. I tried to watch it, and tried to like it, but it is turrble.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Feb 7, 2014 -> 06:08 AM) Maybe we should contact Rick Hahn and ask him to post something along the lines of "I said we will not sign a player that requires we give up a draft choice, so stop f***ing talking about it." There is a lot of things that are discussed on this board that are never going to happen, and just because a White Sox official says something will not happen, it doesn't mean it will not. Offseason baseball is mostly hypotheticals. One of the great things about this board is that if there is something you would rather not read or discuss, you aren't obligated to open those threads,

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 6, 2014 -> 07:54 PM) And it's not like they evicted poor helpless people with nowhere to go from those apartments. I think Ricketts lived in one of those apartments at one time.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2014 -> 07:59 PM) They did so because they had another business giving them their produt for free. I could appreciate it as unique 20 years ago when people would be able to legitimately have a BBQ on the roof during a game. Renovations and 100 person plus bleachers? Come on, that's silly. 20 years ago they were doing it for free. They give the Cubs a cut these days. I don't know why a good business idea makes someone scum. Apparently you are against people making a lot of money. Besides, don't kid yourself, the rooftops being filled made it on every telecast with Harry Caray on. Even though they are across the street, just like the weeds covering up brick walls, they have contributed to the mystique of that dump.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2014 -> 06:14 PM) Which is pretty much why I think theyr'e scum. Yeah, anyone who puts a lot of money into something to make it nice for their customers and to attract business has to be scum.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 6, 2014 -> 03:12 PM) Weber fatbelly all the way for me. Oldie but goodie Nothing beats a Weber

This is silly. The Sox do need pitching. It is the price that people are balking at. If they signed cheap guys to minor league contracts no one would say, they have pitching, why sign another guy even it the price is small? The only poster saying there isn't innings for another pitcher is Balta. So he is the only one who can say the Sox don't need another pitcher. They need several and always will.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2014 -> 01:36 PM) They...kind of are, to my eyes. If they didn't have a contract with the Cubs to legitimize them, thus IMO they are not "stealing" the product, I would agree. But they are running a business, and since the Cubs gave them a contract, they dump a lot of money into their business, and I think are entitled to the view they had when they signed the contract. The Cubs legitimized their business. Now they have no control over the state of the team which can increase or decrease their bottom line. But putting up a scoreboard and blocking their view while in the middle of this contract isn't right IMO. Think about it, if you owned a rooftop building and had this contract and dumped a bunch of money into it only to have the Cubs erect a scoreboard rendering your vantage point worthless, would you consider a lawsuit against the Cubs being a bad guy? The Cubs realize they have a legitimate point or why would a potential lawsuit scare them so much?

QUOTE (TheTruth05 @ Feb 6, 2014 -> 01:35 PM) All the choices I've read are awesome, I just think they should designate 1 game every season for each of our most popular seasons (83,59,etc and no more than 5 different unis) and that way we get a uni(and for some,successful season)history reminder every year. I think the reason they don't do that though is because they designate 1 uni all year so they can sell as many as they can all season long. The Cubs are using something like 10 throwbacks this year for the 100th anniversary of their garbage dump.

The idea that a group of rooftop owners can force the Cubs to move is so ridiculous. It is the Cubs trying to make them look like the bad guys.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 6, 2014 -> 12:53 PM) The problem is that the contract runs out in 2019. After that, they could easily put a giant wall up around the park and completely block the rooftops. So, they only have legitimate expectations of income between now and 2019. That's the key. You can tie them up in the courts, but once that contract runs out, the city has already given the OK for the blockage, and the rooftop owners are SOL. They would basically have to make their buildings taller, and that most likely isn't going to happen. I would think they would be somewhat motivated sellers, and Ricketts, if he claims it costs $20 million a year to delay the renovation for fear of a lawsuit, should be a motivated buyer. Even if another town built him a new stadium, it wouldn't be ready until what the rooftops would probably cost him to buy has already been lost if you believe the Cubs.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2014 -> 12:16 PM) You know, there's a decent chance they're also thinking "man, it'd be so nice to have a shiny new ballpark with luxury boxes to bring in the real money and we can do so without losing much on ticket sales". They might not even be wrong, 22,000 fans coming in the suburbs but the luxury boxes sold and advertising all over teh park compared to 30k and the current limitiations? Still, it wouldn't be as lucrative as what they are thinking they will get if they stay. The White Sox get advertising. They pay little rent. They draw 22k, and if you draw 22k and aren't the lovable loser darlings, the ad revenue decreases, their ticket prices most likely can't be top 3. Ricketts bought a rooftop a few years ago for $5 million. I don't know how many there are, but there can't be more than 10. He would only have to buy out the rooftops who would have their views compromised by the boards. Say that is 8. I think they make that $40 million up quickly. At their convention, they said the wrangling with the rooftop owners has somehow already cost them $20 million. I don't know how, but that is the Cubs claim. If you owned a rooftop, If Ricketts offered you a decent price or you could hold on a pay lawyers for a process you may or may not win, but ultimately when your contract runs out, will lose, I think you take the money and run. Let Ricketts make the "limited view" rooftops part of his capacity. I do know one thing, they aren't moving. No one could be that dumb.