Dick Allen

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 01:40 PM) Wasn't there a pretty good rain coming down in the 2006 SB? Yes, and as I stated, you can't eliminate weather entirely unless you play indoors, and they are going to be moving the SB around, so that really is not realistic. But you have almost a 100% chance of weather being a big factor if the SB is played in NY or Chicago. They threw NY a bone, I would bet if the weather is anywhere near awful, the only cold weather cities to host a SB from now on , will have a dome to play in.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 01:17 PM) It's kind of neutral in that it's s***ty and not what they're used to for both teams. It is bad for both teams, and maybe not this year an issue, one team might be used to the cold, the other team not so much, and why have a championship be possibly determined by a wet ball or a gust of wind, slipping on a snowy field? Unless you play indoors, you obviously can't eliminate it entirely, but IMO, the last thing you want to be a factor if not the determining factor when it's a one game winner take all for best in your sport, is weather. They made it this far playing in domes and warm weather cities. The old don't fix what isn't broken comes into play here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 09:39 AM) who cares j4l is a huge Biebs guy.

I prefer watching games in ideal conditions. It lessens the chance the game is not decided by who played and/or was coached better, but by a freak play. Players are at their best IMO, in ideal conditions, and so is the quality of football. If Rahm wants a Super Bowl in Chicago, add about 10k to Soldier Field and throw on a roof. You'll get some Final 4's, some Big Ten championships, a Super Bowl or 2, and who knows what else? Plus they would have to go to fake turf which would finally end that back and forth.

QUOTE (Paulstar @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 02:59 PM) I don't think either have very good upsides, but Phegley shows more of a natural hitting ability than Flowers so that leads me to believe Phegley has a better chance of becoming a serviceable MLB backup/platoon catcher. I think people should be more focused on realistic expectation of performance than "upside". Waiting for players to get close to their upside gets a lot of guys looking for new jobs.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 03:16 PM) I agree. Sale and Quintana are anchors. Johnson should become a rotation anchor. Danks has us financially strapped and has potential to be good again now that he is through with his recovery period. Take the best of Paulino/Surkamp/Rienzo and try to make value out of them out of the 5 spot. The White Sox have just shown you that Danks, and for that matter, Adam Dunn, have not financially strapped them considering they were willing to spend over $100 million in salary and another $20 million in posting fee for Tanaka.

One problem Phegley has, which if your profession is a catcher, can be considered alarming, is actually catching the ball. Chances are no one will want to ever see Flowers, Phegley or Nieto catch another game for the White Sox once October rolls around, but teams aren't exactly trading away outstanding catchers who hit a ton at the moment.

Jay Bilas ✔ @JayBilas Follow I've just watched every Iowa game since December. The Hawkeyes are as good as ANYONE. This is an underrated team good enough to win it all. 12:30 PM - 22 Jan 2014

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 02:03 PM) 1. Even if it should be that way, I don't see the Sox deciding that 2014 is a lost year. Every indication says otherwise. 2. If they think he will be an MLB player in 15/16/17, then hiding him on the MLB bench does very little to help that - a lot less than putting him at AA then AAA the next year or two. So it stunts his development. That's why they will care. 3. No one is contesting that they are trying to get more catching talent in the system. The question is, what is their plan? I think him making the major league roster is a long shot and I think they are smart enough to see that. Therefore, that isn't what they think is likely. Going down that road, they obviously have a backup plan that is likely to come up, and the most logical one is the path I mentioned. Yeah, I don't see how sitting a guy on the bench in 2014 gets him ready in 2015. Rule 5 guys hardly ever work anymore, but if he shows enough, I think the Sox will work out a deal to keep him. It would be a miracle, especially for a catcher, for him to stick an entire season, especially with Konerko taking a bench spot. This guy cannot be hidden. He would have to play.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 01:04 PM) Just had a Cubs fan tell me Sox were never in on Tanaka, Sox have the worst front office in baseball, have done nothing to improve their MLB team or farm system the past five years, Sale's contract is worthless if they don't trade him. Cubs were a playoff team with Tanaka and Tigers signed Joba for the same amount they used to pay Fielder. f***ing idiot. Sounds about as baseball-savvy as the typical "fan" at Wrigley Field.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 12:58 PM) Revenue for the rooftops is probably close to $1M annually. The buildings have been retrofitted to serve the purpose of being a bar on the top two or three floors if not the entire building. I would guess the cost to buy those buildings would be in the $50-$100M range. Rooftop tickets have dropped drastically in price in recent years. Plus you have to share your income with the Cubs. A building sold a couple years ago for $5 million, in fact, I think the Cubs bought it, and they wouldn't have to buy every rooftop, just the buildings the signs block. The Cubs agreement only runs another 10 years anyway. It may be time some of these rooftop owners may want to flee. They have to spend money litigating, and might wind up with zilch. Considering it's supposedly holding up the plan, spending $20-25 million buying out the rooftops holding up the project seems a small price to pay. And they can run the rooftop and get 100% of the profit. And according to the Cubs themselves: Kenney said $20 million in bleacher sales has been lost because of the threat of a rooftop lawsuit. I don't know how that last statement adds up. Maybe it is just the guy who actually agreed to the agreement between the team and rooftop owners now trying to make them the fall guys for the pathetic excuse they are for a team. Afterall, Theo tried to pin Brett Jackson being a bust on Sveum wanting to work with him in the big leagues, when all Theo would have had to say is no. Maybe in a few years, they will finally get the renovation done, all their prospects will be stars and the Ricketts will laugh at all the doubters. But the way everything has gone wrong, I tend to think there is a lot more glee for Cubs haters the next 6 or 7 years.

Why don't the Cubs just buy out the affected rooftops? It can't cost much more than a reserve infielder. If this is supposedly holding everything up, with what they will have to pay lawyers and time lost, wouldn't that make sense? Money must really be tight at Clark/Addison. It seems to me the Ricketts kids bought a lemon of a car without having a mechanic look at it first. I bet Cubs fans thought anyone but the Tribune Company would be good for the Cubs. Be careful what you wish for.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 10:49 AM) Was going to say, if there was anything Theo is terrible at it's contracts like these. They dodged a bullet. The Crane Kenny goofball that holds a high position with the Cubs stated this past weekend that the rebuild could take the rest of this decade. LMAO, that's 6 years. One problem is the rooftop owners apparently are holding the Wrigley makeover hostage. The Cubs won't start until they sign something saying they won't sue. Those owners are heroes.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 10:38 AM) He might not play again, but he won't walk away from his money. No chance of that. I agree, but to me the Yankees either are able to void the contract or will wind up releasing him. Then I really wonder if ARod would even bother looking to continue to play, but considering he is talking about showing up for spring training, I'm thinking he might. If he does, I would think a team trying to win wouldn't need the circus and distraction a 40 year old guy who hasn't hardly played for a couple of years would bring, but a guy like Loria would probably sign ARod to the minimum, let him play in his hometown, and try to draw people to the freak show. If is contract gets terminated, I think he's probably done and will spend the next few years fighting it in court. If he ultimately gets released, then I think there is a chance he would play for peanuts elsewhere while collecting on the contract, as long as someone is willing to take him.

I'm pretty sure whether they have to pay him or not, ARod is done playing for the Yankees, and unless a guy like Loria wants to make him some sort of zoo attraction, is probably done playing MLB.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 10:28 AM) Boys and girls, take solace in the fact that while we're various shades of bummed here, there's genuine mourning in Wrigleyville. I was always told on television and radio everyone wanted to play for the Cubs.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 10:01 AM) I'd like to see the SOX allocate roughly $50M-$55M of what they offered Tanaka and go get Matt Garza. If anything, the Tanaka sweepstakes have shown that the Ricky is ready to spend to make this team competitive as quickly as possible. I think putting Garza in the 2 spot in the rotation makes this a much better team, and it solves the rotation for the next several seasons. Garza gets hurt a lot and when Theo got lucky when he traded him when he was having a real hot streak. He was mediocre at best with Texas. To me, he's a guy who probably puts up Gavin Floyd type numbers in the AL. I don't think that is worth spending $50 million.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 09:44 AM) The IL numbers are old. They now pay 5% income tax instead of just 3%. Then you also have to add in City of Chicago and Cook County stuff. If you have ever paid city of Chicago or Cook County income tax, I have an extra elevator pass you may be interested in. But sales tax is pretty high. So for every day living, the cost could be higher, but I would imagine it is still nowhere near the cost of NYC or LA.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 09:37 AM) Agreed. If Darvish came over and flopped, you'd better believe Tanaka would have not gotten as good of a deal. Kaz Matsui being a huge flop helped the Sox get Iguchi for a song.

QUOTE (southside hitman @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 09:31 AM) Brutal either way, but you can only push so far. You assume that he pitches well enough to want to re-negotiate a contract that pays him like the a top five pitcher in all of baseball from his age 29-32 years. You also have to look at it if he needed an opt out after 4 years, is your team ready to win the next 4 seasons? If winning a WS isn't realistic the next 4 seasons, signing Tanaka and paying the fee makes less sense.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 09:26 AM) No, it's important not to look at it like this. It CAN be a 4 year deal, but the decision is totally up to Tanaka. This is not the same as the Cutler deal (or any NFL deal) were the team can cut their losses after that if they want. The Yankees can never cut Tanaka loose. Only Tanaka himself can cut himself loose. If he sucks it's a 7 year deal. If he is awesome, it's a 4 year deal. If his performance is mixed, it depends on how good he was in 2016-2017. What is funny is all the speculation, all the fake information by supposed insiders who make their living being insiders, and in the end it winds up being almost exactly what was predicted when it first came out he may be posted.

QUOTE (southside hitman @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 09:16 AM) You can spread out 35 million over as many years as you like, but it matters to a team like the Sox and obviously doesn't to the Yankees. I spread out the 35 million over the course of the contract and added the posting fee, and as I pointed out, it wasn't much different annually averaged. Obviously I am not adding interest made on money sitting elsewhere, but rates are pretty low right now. Maybe in 4 or 5 years that could be very different. 7 years is scary, but so was 6 and 5 and 4 and 3 for that kind of money, but if he pitches well, the 7th year is irrelevant, it won't go that far. He will be re-negotiating after 4.

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 09:14 AM) I wonder if sale will eventually ask for it to be restructured with these contracts getting larger and larger JR doesn't do that. Hopefully he won't get upset and think he was taken advantage of, but he could always have said no, I'll play it out.

What this shows is how much of a bargain Sale's contract is. The Sox need to take advantage of this.

QUOTE (southside hitman @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 09:00 AM) An extra year and 35 million isn't too much different? I'll quote you on that if we signed Garza or Jimenez to a year one 35 million dollar contract. Please do. Add the posting fee. 6 years 120 million plus the 20 million posting fee= 6 years 140 million=$23.3 million a year 7 years 155 million pluse the 20 million posting fee=7 years 175 million=$25 million a year