Dick Allen

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 01:10 PM) The only way I would spend $100+ dollars (assuming I was actually in America or Chicago) is if Sale or Peavy or Quintana was starting. At this point in time, I'd just have ZERO interest in seeing Humber or Floyd struggle out there. Zach Stewart, I'd be even less inclined. I'm less picky when it comes to pitching match ups, but $100 for a regular season baseball game vs. one of the worst teams in the league is crazy. Premium lower boxes are $125 plus fees to sit in row 37.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 12:23 PM) I will continue to reiterate that I would not make a deal to add a starter. The Sox have 6 guys capable of pitching (if you include Quintana and he should be included in this mix for the time being). If the Sox want to make an upgrade, add a veteran reliever (although I'm fine with the pen as is) or pick up a 3rd baseman. That is all I would do. Otherwise let the young players develop and see if the Sox can somehow get there magic back and win the division. Maybe it will happen. It was mentioned today that Boston has scouted the Sox the last 4 days. I wonder if KW wants Bard.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 01:03 PM) If you did that, attendance would take an even bigger hit. Not really. Most tickets are already sold. Their walk ups are next to nothing. Believe me, there is going to be questioning tonight when there are plenty of empty seats. They will fail to mention its at least $85 to sit downstairs and about $50 for the worst seats in the house. My couch, 46 inch Samsung, and a/c are looking really good tonight, although I'll go if I find something reasonable.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 12:46 PM) But then you start playing this game, then Ramirez and Danks might be contracts in the same boat. So where do you stop? Then you trade Thornton and Floyd and maybe Crain, then what's the point of having AJ and Konerko around any longer? That's the flaw in this whole "band aid" approach, as soon as things are looking good, another two more holes in the dike will pop up and there won't be enough money/attendance/minor league depth to make a big enough move. The only way we can increase revenues is actually the bump from the attendance the year after a deep playoff run. Otherwise, the fans will just sit back on their hands and knees and wait until something is proven to them conclusively. If someone took Peavy, Dunn and Rios right now, it would theoretically free up over $81 million the next 3.5 years. I think you could find a centerpiece that could excite the fanbase.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 12:36 PM) Here's the problem, when we do trade our prime players like Santos and Edwin Jackson, what do we have to show for it? Molina and Stewart doesn't inspire any confidence. I guess you can blame Paddy for those, but KW is ultimately accountable. Now Dick Allen and I are on opposite sides of the argument. Pretty funny stuff. In the end, it's true, we might have held on to Ramirez, Thornton and Gavin Floyd too long. What's done is done. But can anyone really have confidence that we're going to get back value or replace those salaries with anything resembling superstar caliber talent? At best, it's going to be piecing together a roster with complementary parts that gel into a team, in the face of the monster that is Verlander/Cabrera/Fielder. That's why we need Chris Sale to counter. For Viciedo to live up to expectations. But if we keep trading all these pieces because we're afraid they'll lose value, then we'll end up like the Oakland A's. And even they tried to break that trend with Cespedes. In the end, there has to be a centerpiece to build your team around. Maybe it will be Hawkins, but that's a 3-4-5 year project in all likelihood. In the meantime, we have to protect the franchise to the extent that our attendance ends up in the teen's for half a decade before we finally have another team to compete for the AL Central. Rios, Dunn and to a much lesser extent, Peavy, are not about maxing out value per se. Its about being a one time opportunity to get out of contracts that can strangle you in the future. And again, I don't think it will happen, I don't think it can happen. I'm just saying if it was an option, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 12:28 PM) Yeah, I still would trade Viciedo...but I want to do it because I think we can capitalize on some potential value that will not materialize down the road. I'd be hoping to increase our talent pool, not decrease it. You're essentially saying let's decrease our talent pool for the sake of the future, based entirely on finances. Now if you have a game plan for replacing these guys for less money, and you think it can be carried-out, then yes, I'd be entirely open to that. But from what I understand, you're espousing that we trade these guys for the sake of dumping salary, and not looking to replace them with much externally. It frees up a lot of money to pursue other players. I'm a one trick pony with this right now. Dump the contracts and then see what you can do with the savings. I don't know what else is available, but with that kind of money for your use, I'd imagine replacements wouldn't be that hard to obtain. The White Sox and Tigers were the teams in on Dunn when he was a free agent. The Tigers don't have room for him, the Sox would never trade him there anyway. No one else wanted to pay him what the Sox paid him in 2010. Its extremely unlikely there even is a market for him anyway, as I doubt his value has increased. He's limited defensively, although his weight loss may convince an NL team to make a run at him, but I doubt it, and how many teams are looking for DHs and have the payroll space and desire to take him on?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 12:16 PM) Yeah, I get that...and I'm saying what the hell did you sign them for in the first place? In essence, what you're saying is the chances of them winning the World Series this year (or in the next 2-3 years even) are not great enough to warrant taking the financial risk and setting us back even further in the future. I disagree for two reasons: 1) I think any time you have a chance to win the division, you have a chance to get hot in the Postseason and win it all, and winning it all, is the main goal, after all; and 2) even if you do manage to unload these contracts, the future is not so bright even with that money off the books to make me say the risk of going for it while you have a chance is unwarranted. You simply cannot predict with any certainty the failure or success of any MLB franchise. Look at the 2010 SF Giants...I don't think anyone saw that coming...look at this year's Dodgers...last year the long-term outlook on them was fairly grim...now it is as rosy as any MLB team. You wanted the Sox to trade Viciedo. Why did they sign him in the first place? I don't think Dunn and Rios performances will match their salaries moving forward, just like you don't think or at least didn't think Viciedo was a good as advertised and wanted to max his trade value. I believe there is a good chance the Sox will be "stuck" with Dunn and Rios in the future, and will not waver with if someone will take their money, let them have them. Mine isn't so much trade value. Its being obligated to pay tens of millions of dollars to guys that aren't going to be worth tens of millions of dollars. Right now, they are earning their checks, but they haven't the majority of their Whtie Sox careers. The point is most likely mute. I really, really doubt anyone is asking about them, and I really doubt KW is throwing their names out there.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 12:11 PM) Aren't you normally Mr. White Sox Ra-Ra? Seriously? I'm just confused. The White Sox signed Adam Dunn to a contract we all considered a steal. In the second year of said contract, he leads the Majors in home runs (on pace for a White Sox record) and leads the AL in walks. He is 5th in the AL in OPS, with teammate Paul Konerko 2nd. These two are the best 3/4 in all of baseball. Yes, Dunn was horrific last year - but his confidence is back and he's been even better than expected when signed. There is zero reason to trade Adam Dunn, and certainly no reason to waive him - not right now anyway. The White Sox have another hot streak in them, and they are a playoff team this year. They've lost some tough ones, but talk of ridding ourselves of Dunn this year for the sake of the future is, well, asinine. There are a lot of dollars owed to Dunn, that and the memory of 2011. Maybe you considered his contract a steal, I would say the majority would have thought at the very least a slight overpay. We know how bad he can be. Again, if I was convinced he would hit like he's hit this year for the rest of the season and the next 2, he wouldn't be touchable except for an overpay. I don't think that. Its my opinion.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 11:51 AM) If someone told me back in February that the three of them would have this level of production, I think the Sox would be doing bigger cartwheels. The Sox, as an organization, want to win. They do not want to do a rebuild. If you trade any one of them, you may as well trade all of them. The whole point of acquiring them was to win the division and advance in the postseason. It hasn't worked out that way yet, and you've had to pay them all along the way...now it is working out, so we are going to trade them? To be honest, I know the vast majority of the fans do not like Alex Rios, but what we do know is that since this new coaching staff has come in, he has played well and displayed a hard work ethic and a positive attitude. Who's to say that he regresses again? Dunn, I'm willing to give him a mulligan for last year. Peavy will most likely be gone next year. At the very least, you hold on to these guys til the offseason and then trade them then (see Wells, Vernon) after you've given it a shot this year. I'm saying you get rid of them when you can, except for maybe Peavy. There's nothing to say they have a bad second half and become immovable again, if they even are moveable now.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 11:56 AM) I think the collective at Soxtalk is over-reacting to some painfully blown games over the weekend. People need to chill, it's f***ing baseball! It's mid-way through June and the White Sox are in first. Talk of dropping Dunn or Peavy is asinine. Its not assinine, and I'm not saying it because they lost some games this weekend. Of the 3, Peavy is the last in my line because he's not owed that much in the future.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 11:54 AM) And then what the hell do you do? Go sign someone else instead? We've got a really nice collection of young players and veterans right now...but the farm system is still fairly barren as far as we can tell...if you jettison these vets now, there is no telling you'll be able to replace them in time to win before the young players we have now either become prohibitively expensive, making it difficult to add any talent to the team, become prohibitively expensive and walk off into the sunset, or suffer injury or a regression in production. This is why rebuilding is so f***ing hard. When you have a chance to win, you take it. That's what the entire purpose of playing was, last I checked. Peavy is gone after this year. You could find an OF and an DH with the money saved not having to pay Dunn and Rios . You can still win without those guys. The Sox lost a game the other night when Rios and Dunn combined for 3 homers. I'm also projecting the future. If you base everything on the past, there really is no purpose playing the games. You keep these guys if you think they can perform like they are performing for the balance of their contracts. I believe you have to be crazy to think that is the case. I really doubt you can dump them anyway. Maybe Dunn, but his market is very limited. I doubt any other team would touch Rios' contract.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 11:09 AM) Rios is the only one of those three that I'm afraid will regress. Dunn is performing near his career averages again. So, I would expect him to continue that way. I don't think he'll hit 55 HRs (which he is on pace for), but numbers like .230ish, 45 HRs, and 100+ RBIs? I'll take that. Peavy looks to be back to form after two years of injuries. Regardless, if this team is still in first place at the deadline, I don't see any reason to trade any of those guys "for the future". The future is now with the team in first place. If I was convinced Dunn would stay at his current level or previous level before he came to the Sox, I would agree with you. I am not convinced. He's doing great, but I said it months ago, if any of these guys plays well enough someone will take all their money, you have to move them.

When the moaning about the empty seats tonight starts, just remember bleacher seats are $85 right now not including fees, upper reserved are $49 with dynamic pricing to watch the Sox take on one of the worst teams in baseball.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 09:36 AM) I still don't understand how trading Dunn makes any sense. Rios I would dump in a heartbeat. Its a lot of money that could be spent elsewhere. Dunn has been coming up big, but his production most likely will drop off. I don't trust his offense will remain worth anywhere near what they are going to have to pay him, although I'm loving what he's doing lately and his weight drop probably makes him more attractive to NL teams as now he can at least act like he should be wearing a glove.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 10:09 AM) What on earth are you guys talking about? Rios, Dunn, and Peavy are all finally producing how we expected them to when we acquired them. If not for that purpose, why did we acquire them? Did we not acquire them to win? Are we not winning now? So we finally reach the intended goal, and you want to undue the acquisitions...and for what purpose? If not to win, what the hell is the goal here? You undo it because moving forward you have to be crazy to expect them to continue their resurgences. See Wells, Vernon. He bounced back somewhat, enough for another team to bite, and unloaded him on the Angels who will release him soon and eat a ton of money. It frees up a huge chunk of payroll for a re-do. If someone told you back in February, in June or July teams would take these guys and eat all of their money, if you're the Sox, you're doing cartwheels. We already had the Alex Rios tease in the first half of 2010. Peavy would be the guy I would be most reluctant to part with as his obligation is about to end.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 09:20 AM) Like I said I know you can't trade him now. Though it could get interesting if the Sox spend the next month and a half putzing around .500, and someone like Detroit or Cleveland gets hot and opens up a 5+ game lead. Do you then look to deal Peavy and Rios? If I'm KW, if anyone wanted to eat the contract, I'd trade Peavy, Rios and Dunn. It would take a little more to get Peavy as the commitment is coming to a close anyway in about 3 1/2 months.

In a month or so, no one will ever mention KW didn't bring in Brandon Inge ever again. He did get hot, but reality is setting in. BTW, I can't believe how much I have actually defended KW this season. I still think he should be the ex-GM.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 01:15 PM) Again, you've spelled out the catch 22 here. If the Sox went into the season with Viciedo, De Aza, and Morel in their lineup, people wouldn't look at this team and think "This team is set to compete right now". If you wanted to field a team ready to challenge for the AL this year, you wouldn't give any of those guys a starting spot coming in to this year, you'd spend money to try to put someone better in those positions. Telling the season ticket holders to stay, they're competing again this year...that's a $130 million+ payroll, and it requires blocking/getting rid of question mark guys who might give you something but who you can't count on (Alejandro). Even if you kept Buehrle, you're in the same boat...most of the season ticket holders would have no confidence in the team coming in to this year, except they'd have a $15 million a year pitcher taking up even more of their payroll. You're right it doesn't sell tickets, but that's what the failure of last year left us with. When you go all in and lose, you're out and you have to start again. Not really. I think the Sox attendance even if Buerhle came back, would be down from last year, but instead of the average being 21,330 I believe it would be at least 22,330. Nothing great, but an improvement, and when you add that additional money up with what they alledgedly offered Soler, get creative and its possible Buerhle takes the offer. For now it would look pretty good, who knows, it could look real ugly a month from now.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 01:56 AM) They need to deal for Matt Dominguez. He's 23, in AAA, and a former 1st round pick that is blocked by Hanley. He's elite defensively and has potential to hit at least at a servicable level in the bigs. So he's Brent Morel.

QUOTE (Cerbaho-WG @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 05:59 PM) What is the OF doing so deep? Ironically it was a no doubles defense

QUOTE (Baron @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 05:59 PM) Glad Matt wants to end this game here as well. What a worthless reliever he is. When the LF plays a single into a triple blame the pitcher.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 12:56 PM) There's the key though...all of your points are premised on the concept that they weren't going into a rebuilding year. They were. Trading John Danks for middling prospects would have been the same message, and then we'd be stuck paying Mark Buehrle an enormous amount of money that even the Marlins think is crazy. I actually, and you can go back and search my posts, was never as high on Detroit as the majority of humans. I thought the Sox had a chance coming into this season even without Buerhle. Back in December, when Buerhle left, I didn't feel they had any chance. One reason attendance is low is the Sox had a bad year last year and this winter made no splash. Really, the only hope was bounce back seasons from a lot of guys. That doesn't sell tickets, and it keeps you from selling tickets. The Sox weren't changing much, but losing their most reliable pitcher, whether he's an ace or not. That cost them some sales.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 12:59 PM) No. Zero effect. That just confirms that 1000 is low.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 12:50 PM) Yeah, I just skimmed through your post and misunderstood. The season ticket holders left because we weren't winning and they were sick of the soap opera, that's my guess. Ozzie left, so the soap opera was over. I actually loved the Ventura signing from the start. I did initially state we would not renew unless both KW and Ozzie were gone, but we would have most likely renewed had the Sox been seen as "all in" again. At least looked like they were aiming to win the division. Obviously having Buerhle would have helped, and I don't blame them for not giving him $58 million. I just wish they made him an offer, they weren't tapped out. He basically said he would have taken less. How much less we will never know, so any of this is speculative, but I'm sure vendors are glad he's gone.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 12:38 PM) Frankly, I don't believe any of that. The last straw was being a below .500 team last year. As a former season ticketholder, it was my final straw, and I had them long before 2005. I don't think I am far different than most. It seemed to confirm to me they were going into a total rebuild which I didn't want to spend that kind of money to watch, which also kills advanced sales. I think 1K a game may even be low. As Turns out, this season is far more enjoyable than I ever would have imagined, and while I miss my seats, I've been able to get real good deals and have still gone to about 10 games. It was sort of nice not "having" to go to games in April or May when it was not so nice outside. The only downside is if they make the playoffs, I miss out, but I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunities to jump right back in if that appears a certainty.