Dick Allen

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.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2014 -> 12:24 PM) We also have a pretty deep bullpen right now too...Jones, Belisario, Downs, Lindstrom, Leesman/Veal/Surkamp, Petricka, Webb. Other guys like Rienzo could see time there as well if they don't get an immediate rotation spot. If we're getting to a guy like Troncoso again...there's a good chance it happened because we traded people away, even perhaps more obviously so than last year when he took Crain's spot and then shortly thereafter Thornton was traded. It is deep with unknowns and mediocrity. One thing I am shocked about is how many decent free agents, still haven't signed. There are still a few out there that are should get 8 figures a year. Has there ever been this many this close to the start of spring training?

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Feb 6, 2014 -> 12:10 PM) BTW who cares if the 5th spot guys are terrible? Probably the entire bullpen. Just my guess. That's the other thing. The better your rotation is, the less taxing and exposing it is on your bullpen. I don't agree with you about Dunn, might as well see what he can do one more time, but I don't get why so many people want to see not just bad starters but more of guys like Troncoso as a byproduct.

Again, if the only other option was moving, why wouldn't the Cubs just buy the rooftop owners out? In the end it would save them a lot of money. The Cubs anywhere else suddenly have the White Sox attendance issues. If Ricketts moved the Cubs, he would have to be considered the worst owner in the history of Chicago sports.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2014 -> 11:59 AM) Which is why in the past year we've traded away 4 (and 1/2 if you count Jesse Crain's corpse). Therefore, you shouldn't be opposed to adding more.

If the White Sox have too many good pitchers, there are 29 teams that will take them off their hands.

It looks like Bronson Arroyo is going to get the same contract as Scott Kazmir. I'm not advocating the Sox signing Arroyo, but it does show you prices are dropping. Would anyone really want Kazmir over Arroyo now even with Arroyo's advanced age.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 6, 2014 -> 11:03 AM) I absolutely agree, and I think that Davidson has the biggest bust potential out of anyone the Sox acquired this offseason. I also think, total value considered (offensively and defensively), he has the highest ceiling of any player the Sox acquired too. My point is Charlotte may not be the worst place for him to hang for a while. I do think some are expecting too much too soon. All 3 of the guys I mentioned did have some early success at the major league level, but then it all went wrong. Very wrong. I think it would behoove the Sox to make sure he is ready, at least to handle some failure, before he is handed the job, no matter what the other options at 3B happen to be.