Dick Allen

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 12:40 PM) I think the big difference there is that you earn the right to have games in your stadium whereas the super bowl is supposed to be a neutral field. Exactly, and it really isn't a neutral field if the weather conditions favor one team more than the other just because they limit the opponent. No one is going to change their mind, but the Super Bowl is probably the biggest spectacle in pro sports. Up until now it hasn't needed the gimmick of snow or blizzard or mud to keep people interested. It appears a bullet will be dodged and conditions Sunday won't play a big part in the outcome of the game. But there would definitely be a huge debate if the weather was awful and ultimately that decided who took home the trophy.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 11:15 AM) The Ice Bowl and "The Greatest Game Ever Played" are two perfect examples of how awesome championship games can be in cold weather. Johnny Unitas marching his team down the field in OT. Cold and muddy field. You can't beat that. Football was a different game back then. Unitas was one of the few QBs that took to the air often. Yet, his career high in passing yards would be Peyton Mannings career low by a decent margin. Obviously they play a couple more games these days, but Manning threw for more than 2000 yards more than Unitas' career high this year. Seattle's defense should be the only thing limiting Denver's passing game. Not the weather when playing for a championship.

I prefer watching the championship determined with both teams playing in excellent playing conditions with no excuses, less of a chance for flukes to win games. It's for all the marbles. I think conditions should be to make these teams as close to 100% capacity as possible. If it is 38 degrees, and not all that windy, that's OK. But if it was like it is in Chicago today, or a blizzard, if the Bears were playing, I would be sick it they lost because something flukey happened that had nothing to do with ability. Of course, I wouldn't mind if they put a dome on every NFL stadium.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 09:41 AM) lol. I love it when you spin. This thread has been a massive fail for the Santana/Jimenez stuff, which is why you steered it this way. Honestly it needs to be closed. A new low for you. See you're wrong, try to spin it that someone else was, then close the thread.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 09:30 AM) Actually they did go to Jim Thome and asked him if he wanted to finish the season with a contender, he said OK, and they worked out the deal with the Dodgers. That year, Olney reported the White Sox sent out a memo to all teams saying their veterans were available in trade. Thome was traded at the September deadline. The White Sox had to get his permission because of a NTC. He didn't ask to be traded, and could have said no, but it was for one month to a contender. In fact, Thome wanted out so bad, he wanted to come back in 2010 for $1 million. Then Ozzie said no.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 09:00 AM) As opposed to the other two that pop up... Whether with Sox or not, Peavy wants to play for contender Peavy: 'I will go play anywhere to win' How is that asking to be traded? You stated the White Sox don't trade veterans unless they ask to be traded. Except not really. It is in the Sox MO to protect their veterans wishes. They don't trade those guys unless they want to go. That is why Peavy wasn't moved until he basically asked in public to go. Did Matt Thornton ask to be traded? Did Jim Thome ask to be traded? Did Jose Contreras ask to be traded? Did Aaron Rowand ask to be traded? Did Jon Garland ask to be traded? Except for Sale, Hahn at Soxfest, said any player with over 3 years experience could be traded. It must be a very unhappy organization if they have all asked out.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:37 PM) But an awful, flukey, luck reliant game. Not how I prefer the most important game to be played. I prefer good football. I agree.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 08:26 AM) So then he's not getting traded? By that logic, trade and DFA are essentialy the exact same thing. He might be a throw in addition to a bigger deal, but Keppinger doesn't have value. If the Sox didn't have him and needed a 3rd baseman or 2nd baseman and his contract and 2013 were the same for another team, if Hahn gave up anything of value or took on the contract, we all would be saying wtf.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 08:05 AM) After thinking of their own roster, I would hope a GM says, "Hey, that roster is a clusterf***, maybe I can offer them less for that guy, or I will just wait til they DFA him." Seriously, what would you expect someone to offer for Keppinger now and how do you think it would be different if they didn't have Davidson? The Sox aren't going to release him. Guys who can't run or field and have .600 OPSs and are owed $8 million generally bring you back some guy in A ball who if everything went right would be a poor man's Dylan Axelrod, even if you eat most of the contract.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 07:39 AM) It would have been much easier to trade Keppinger before re-signing Konerko and acquiring Davidson. Now every team knows Hahn is desperate to move him. I think if any team really wants Keppinger, the offers won't change. I think most GMs think of their roster before trying to screw another GM. It wasn't like Jeff Keppinger was going to bring back anything of use anyway.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 10:23 PM) Nice selection of the out of town article. Written by Bruce Levine. You are wrong yet again.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 09:51 PM) This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Adam Dunn. It has everything to do with a scenario where a starting pitcher is dumped so quickly in a contract....but not dumped, in your idea, but brings back more value to the organization than the initial ROI. You're making my point for me. Nobody wanted Adam Dunn because it was a bad contract at that time, just like Santana/Jimenez would be if they signed similar deals with them. The only point I am making is guys signing 4 year contracts are game to be traded. There is no rule against it. Signing a pithcer increases the White Sox pitching inventory, making it easier to trade pitching for help in other areas.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 09:29 PM) Except not really. It is in the Sox MO to protect their veterans wishes. They don't trade those guys unless they want to go. That is why Peavy wasn't moved until he basically asked in public to go. How about a link? They told him what was going on and he knew they weren't going to win, and knew the teams involved. But as far as not trading him if he decided he didn't want to go,that you are totally making up. And he never asked to go http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_...icago-white-sox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 09:04 PM) Paul Konerko said hi. Big difference between Konerko and Peavy. Plus Konerko has 10/5 rights.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 07:57 PM) 3 or 4 year contract. The 3rd year of Peavy's deal isn't guaranteed, and the unique circumstances of his staying with the Sox have been illuminated about 20-25 times in this thread already. So let me get this straight, if at the trade deadline in 2011, someone for some reason wanted Adam Dunn, the White Sox absolutely couldn't or shouldn't have traded him. Thanks for the knowledge. As I stated, if you are upfront with these players and they agree to come, you have done nothing wrong.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 05:17 PM) One more difference that no one has pointed out yet is that Peavy went public before the deadline about how he wouldn't mind getting trade either. If Jake had asked to stay, he wouldn't have gone anywhere. In reality, he still had "control". Saying they wouldn't have traded him if he said he didn't want to go anywhere is just making things up.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 05:02 PM) But this is why his salary was low and contract was tradeable: the terms of the contract were not representative of the highest bidder for his services. It still was 14.5 million a year. Santana and Jimenez probably won't get that and teams have more money to play with.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 04:58 PM) And he did. But he gave up control.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 04:53 PM) Again, JP opted to sign an extension before reaching the market. Still could have gone wherever he wanted.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 04:01 PM) Right now, the Sox rotation features: -3 guys who are making 7 (or 8) digit figures -1 guy who has put up great numbers over the past 2 years, and -1 guy who is the top pitching prospect in the system and one of the more highly thought of pitchers in all of minor league baseball. Who are you kicking out of the rotation to bring in Ervin Santana or Ubaldo Jimenez? Paulino to the bullpen? Say good bye to Daniel Webb then. Johnson? No point in having him repeat AAA when he destroyed it last year. It's an absolutely absurd, ridiculous, crazy idea to bring in another starting pitcher. Thank f*** Rick Hahn is the GM. Rick was willing to spend $120 million to bring in another starter and said it is likely he will be drafting one with the 3rd pick. Apparently he does not agree with your assessment about the starting pitching.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 04:42 PM) Really, so the White Sox brought Jake Peavy from outside the organization on a 3-4 year contract and then traded him 3 months later. Oh wait, no. Free agent could have gone wherever he wanted. How many times has his situation occurred and why does something have to be common to do it?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:32 PM) IT NEVER HAPPENS. Give me one example of a team that signed a pitcher to a 3-4 year contract and then turned around and dealt him 3 months later. ONE. J F P

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:29 PM) It doesn't matter how many times you say something, if it doesn't fit the rant, DA ignores it. For example, I answered the KW farm system question he keeps asking pages ago. It didn't fit the agenda, and it has been dually ignored. Typical response. KW said he could have had a good farm system if he wished. Your words, not mine. Apparently that is why Jared Mitchell is a White Sox. I was actually reading an article about Trout a couple of years ago, and a lot of people thought he was going to the White Sox.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:25 PM) How do you know this? Because I know most teams go through at least 7 or 8 starters a year. A lot of teams want to see where they are at in July. You know, common sense.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:16 PM) Option A: 3-4yr, $12-13m, choose a winner to play for Option B: 3-4yr, $12-13m, get traded somewhere completely out of your control in 4-6 months You just be very upfront. If they chose to go somewhere else, that is their right. But it probably isn't as simple as you think. There are going to be teams in July looking for pitching that aren't looking to sign these guys now.