Dick Allen

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/t...yball-approach/ Interesting.

If the White Sox truly had any interest in Matsui, they should take a gander at Johnny Damon. He'll only be slightly more expensive, is the same age, puts up similar numbers except Johnny can still run. I also like the concept of bringing in guys who have won and been a big part of the winning. Maybe they would let him grow his beard back.

QUOTE (jenks45monster @ Dec 28, 2009 -> 04:59 PM) "This thread/poll is ridiculous." The way I see it, it means, this thread and poll are ridiculous, as is the poster who posted it. My points as to why I'd prefer Carter: - I'm not much of a Quentin believer. I wonder if he'll ever be fully healthy. - K's aside, look at Carter's power numbers. - Carter is cheaper and will be for a while. - He fills some of our current needs. - Not that it really matters much, but it'd definitely boost our system up right now. I'm confused here. You like Carter's A ball and AA ball power numbers better than you like Quentin who probably would have been MVP in 2008 with 40+ homers if he didn't suffer a fluke injury. Plus, filling needs, wouldn't a guy who has gotten it done in the major leagues fill them a lot better than a question mark? I could understand if you're basing a lot of this if it is your belief that Quentin won't be able to stay healthy, I think that is a legit concern. He hasn't been able to do it yet, but if he can put that behind him, I don't see how this trade will ever look like anything but a good one from a White Sox perspective.

Does it really matter where TSN or Phil Rogers ranks them? No need to get worked up over it.

Does UZR ever take into account the first baseman saving the other infielder's ass on a play? Ramirez had a UZR of 2.4 I believe last year. If Frank Thomas was the White Sox first baseman, he easily would have had at least 15 more errors maybe 20 or 25 if he made the same throws. Would his UZR still be 2.4? I'm not being a smart ass, I don't know the answer. I would imagine a first baseman that is good defensively would probably increase every other infielder's UZR.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 26, 2009 -> 09:59 AM) Going to the game tonight. Help me god. I think they will win tonight. You'll have a good time.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 25, 2009 -> 03:09 PM) DA, why are you allowed to voice your opinion, but I am not allowed to voice mine? I posted the stuff about Shanahan being interested in the Bears job last night/this morning. I am on record as supporting him numerous times throughout this thread. Are you accusing me of purposefully forming my opinions simply to contradict your own? You claimed he was just a sexy name, but Cowher was somehow different. I questioned that. How is that being unfair to you in any way? It was "got it". It was very condescending and you know it. It was meant to make me look like my opinion is stupid, which it may be, but is it your place, especially as a moderator to point it out, with the only evidence being its different than yours? Its just about every post I make anymore, and its getting old. Besides, being thought of as less of a football coach than Bill Cowher isn't exactly that big of a knock. Shanahan didn't win without Elway. That's a fact. He didn't draft him. I prefer Cowher, but I actually before a few current assistants to either.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 25, 2009 -> 02:36 PM) Ok, so wait, Cowher was the coach in Pittsburgh for 13 years before he won a Super Bowl, but he is a guy you like, while Shanahan won 2 Super Bowls in Denver, but he is just a sexy name. Got it. Why is my opinion any worse than yours, and why do you make stupid comments after every one of my posts? Mike Shanahan inherited John Elway. They win 2 SB, Elway retires and they go 6-10 the next season. Cowher has a higher winning pct anyway. I supposed if you are an NBA fan you would be doing cartwheels if the team you follow hired Jerry Krause to be the GM. He has 6 titles.

QUOTE (MattZakrowski @ Dec 25, 2009 -> 02:27 PM) I understand that crede most likely won't top 100 games in 2010, but his d is good enough to provide value even in a small amount of games. I love Crede, but his back is a mess, and there's no guarantee he'll play 10 games in 2010 let alone 100.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 25, 2009 -> 01:58 PM) Yeah, if you want to pay him $8m a year....and he won't have his little short porch in left to launch to... $8 million a year for 2 years is well worth it if he helps you win. His splits last year were 17 to 7 home vs. road homers, but in the past they have been pretty similar, and its not as if USCF isn't hitter friendly, and if its LF you are worried about, its a lot easier to take one out to LF at USCF than any of the Yankee Stadiums. Plus he can run. He's the perfect guy for the Sox right now. If they want to go cheap, its Thome or Vlad, but they won't be too much cheaper than Damon.

QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 25, 2009 -> 10:17 AM) Cowher extremely interested...check Shanahan extremely interested...check Lovie's dismissal...... I have said planety of times here and stand by it, the only way I fire Lovie is if we get a big time replacememnt. A guy with good experience. No head coach taking his first head coaching job. Shanahan had a crappy team and lost his job with Cutler playing like a Pro Bowler. Sure he's a sexy name, but bringing him would be setting everyone up for dissappointment, like bringing in Orlando Pace. Cowher is a guy I would love the Bears to get, but more than Lovie would have to go to make it happen. No matter who they bring in, if they don't upgrade the talent level, the team is not going to be very good.

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Dec 23, 2009 -> 12:17 PM) The Mets may have reduced interest in Carlos Delgado, according to Marty Noble of MLB.com. The slugger won't start playing baseball in Puerto Rico until mid-January; no reason was given for the delay. Sounds like he's still not fully healthy... Supposedly the hip he had surgery on still isn't ready for baseball action. I'm pretty sure I would stay away from him, if he would even consider White Sox offer.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Dec 23, 2009 -> 07:11 PM) Are we really going to scoff at him for being the only good pitcher in 2007? How is that to his detriment? He did his job the team didn't. I don't think a franschise with our tenous history with pitching can really afford to look down on: 33 Starts per year, 200 + K's and innings with an era of around 4 in a hitters park. With years like 2006 29 CHW AL 11 12 .478 4.84 33 32 0 1 0 0 202.2 206 116 109 23 56 2 184 15 0 7 872 98 1.293 9.1 1.0 2.5 8.2 3.29 2007 30 CHW AL 15 8 .652 3.74 32 32 0 2 0 0 216.2 197 95 90 29 50 2 213 7 0 5 882 126 1.140 8.2 1.2 2.1 8.8 4.26 2008 31 CHW AL 12 16 .429 4.67 33 33 0 1 0 0 208.1 214 113 108 25 61 2 200 6 0 2 890 98 1.320 9.2 1.1 2.6 8.6 3.28 I never said he was a superb pitcher, i've said multiple times that i'm glad he's gone, that he couldn't perform in the stretch run, that he's homer-prone, but to argue that he did nothing for this team is absolute bull. It reeks of a flawed mentality that a guy should take a permanent hit for a small sample size. Its not bull. He did nothing for the White Sox except win some meaningless games in 2007. Maybe we shouldn't forget what guys do during spring training either. As for the hitters park vs. pitchers park, take a look at White Sox starter splits the last couple years. Seems most do better at the launching pad. Small sample size? 2 seasons in contention, 2 seasons he came up small. Then everything could be forgotten when he gets the nod in the playoffs but he gets lit up like David Hasselhoff on 2 for 1 night. If anything he should appreciate the $30 million + he was paid for being a mental midget. He also fell apart when the Yankees needed him in 2004.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Dec 23, 2009 -> 06:36 PM) I'd have him pegged for an ERA near 4 next year. I'm not going to argue that Javy's going to dominate the AL, i just don't think he's as bad as everyone says. I don't disagree with any specific point of yours, Javy's a flawed guy, and i agree that the park factor and ERA trends put him in a bad spot, i just hate to see Sox fans forget what he achieved for this team. What he achieved for the White Sox? He was paid handsomely and came up big in 2007 when the Sox were one of the worst teams in baseball for most of the year. When they needed him in 2006 and 2008 he wet the bed.

It appears Capps is going to blow off the Cubs for the Nationals. I thought everyone wants to play for the Cubs. I'm starting to wonder about Ricketts. I know Wrigley is a cash register, but he took out a $400 million loan to buy the team and is looking at about $200 million in renovations with a payroll that has a ton of long term committment.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Dec 22, 2009 -> 06:58 PM) So if the Bulls lose to the Knicks tonight, is that going to be the end for VDN? I doubt it although on ESPN tonight they said JR thinks this should be a playoff team and he wants the playoff money. Hiring a new coach would probably cancel out that playoff money if the report was accurate. I do think there is zero chance Vinny is coaching this team next year. If the guy they want to replace him is available now, I say the sooner the better, but I think VDN is going to be around for a while. I hope I'm wrong, this is about as bad as the Bears now.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 22, 2009 -> 07:00 AM) Peavy was acquired on July 31st, so the Sox were only paying for 2 months out of 6. At $8M that means they were paying him something like $2.67M. Alex Rios was acquired on August 10th, 1/3 of the way through August. That's 1 2/3 months of Rios at $5.9M for the season. The Sox paid him something like $1.64M. In total, that's about an extra $4.31M. Not exactly a lot of money in baseball terms. It is very possible that the Sox had this small amount left over going into the season, but they didn't make another signing because they couldn't get much for it. Rather, since the Sox had so many veterans in the last years of their contracts (i.e. so many tradable pieces), they decided to wait and see how they were doing first, and then either dump some veterans if they were out of it or use the little extra cash to make an acquisition that would help the team in 2009 and beyond. Or maybe the Sox really were at their budget like they said, and Uncle Jerry and the rest of the crew decided to take on that whopping $4.31M extra as a means to improve the organization for the next several years afterwards. The Sox DID NOT take on a lot of money this season. All that money starts coming in 2010. Read KW's quote on July 7. He said he couldn't make a big trade because of money, couple that with the fact KW traded for Peavy earlier in the season, but was refused. They had the money then, no? The Sox had money. His quote said their projections were off, which would indicate they had even less than they budgeted. So if they didn't have money in April and May, they had even less in July and August. If the money isn't a lot for 3 Peavy starts and what ever you want to call Rios' performance, how come so many freak out about Linebrink's contract?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 09:19 PM) It doesn't have to be an attendance spike. If you are really an accountant, you would know that companies deal with projected revenue numbers all of the time. If the Sox did their budget based on a certain percentage fall in revenue, and then came in above that number, they would have accumulated surplus cash that they didn't have according to the budget in Feb, by the time June rolled around. There is nothing to suggest there was a spike from April and May when they said they had no money to June and July when they spent money. KW was crying about the LA Dodgers attendance, calling it an eye opener, and cried about money. I believe that series was in June.. The attendance didn't get much better after that. It doesn't look like they added any sponsors during that time either. “Well, if I’m being completely honest money is more of the issue now. We expected a little more support than we’ve gotten,” he said. “I think it’s a reflection upon the economy of what’s kind of happen with regards to attendance and I don’t know if we’ve played consistent enough, or been exciting enough for people to get behind us. We’re still hopeful.” We’ve been probably pretty short or a little aggressive in our projections and we might have to take a lot closer look at it, because, the Dodgers series was certainly an eye opener for us,” Williams said. The quote was from July 7. Peavy came to the Sox less than 1 month later.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 09:13 PM) Dick, it's not that I believe everything they say, it's just that I don't think they have any reason to lie to us. I trust, through the behavior of the owner and the GM, that they do everything in their power to win. I am not on some mission or crusade to uncover every unspent dollar that may be in the cushions of their couch. For whatever reason, you are. I'm really not. I just know they screwed White Sox fans last off season. They have every reason to lie. Again its a business, if they want to make a profit, that's fine. I would want to make a profit. But you know as well as I, if they don't spend money but publicize they made $20 million that particular season, its not going to go over very well. As the only major sport without a salary cap, making money and not winning isn't going to fly. They aren't going to tell you they are willing to lose money, because then expectations about spending would reach Yankee level. People wouldn't think the Sox should even have a budget. They tell you they break even. Its something fans will understand. JR's edict is to not lose money. I say, if a profit is what you really want, don't talk about finances all the time. Don't always mention you don't have any money to spend. If its some sort of negotiating tactic, its only going to work with a player only the White Sox are negotiating with anyway. If another team offers more money, the player is going to take it.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 09:02 PM) A baseball team is under no obligation to spend more than they make and are under no obligation to simply break even. It's a business. It isn't a public trust. That said, I still have an incredibly difficult time understanding how people can still call this organization cheap, despite the cascade of hard evidence that proves otherwise. It's almost like arguing that Yao Ming isn't tall. Here's the reality, and where I believe the argument should cease: for the last several year, the Sox payroll is exactly in line (and sometimes even higher) with their attendance for a given season. When they have middle-of-the-road attendance, they have a middle-of-the-road payroll. It happens EVERY year -- except for years like 2006 when they were 10th in attendance, yet 4th in payroll. Hell, you could go back to 2001 when they had the 22nd highest attendance but their payroll was 16th in MLB. There is just no disputing this. This is fact, not opinion. True, but the White Sox have advantages some other teams do not, they have a sweatheart lease deal and pay nothing for ballpark upkeep. In fact, if their full price ticket attendance falls below a certain threshold, they don't even pay rent. Those half priced Mondays killed two birds with one stone. They increased the attendance on a normally slow night and those tickets didn't count towards their rent, at least not fully.They also make more than most for local TV and radio rights. I can call them cheap last off season. They obviously had money. They spent more than they ever had in June and July. There is no way Dewayne Wise should have been leading off on opening day. There is no way Brent Lillibridge should have been playing in MLB in 2009 and especially not leading off occassionally. There were bargains available and the Sox said they had no money to spend. Read Forbes. They claim the White Sox make a decent amount of money, and that's after paying all these salaries.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 08:35 PM) Without actually knowing their budget, it is hard to say exactly, but it is very commonly done by other organizations and corporations all of the time. Quite honestly I really believe it was a capital raise by the investors who were not willing to put forth any more money until they KNEW was the season was going to bring. These people didn't get rich by blowing all of their money during complete financial chaos. It makes total sense to me that the investors of the club would not be willing to put more money on the table until some of those uncertainties cleared up, the biggest being, would people still go to baseball games. If this is common, how come you argued with me last year when I suggest the exact same thing concerning the $5 million they spent to get out of Tucson?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 08:32 PM) I refuse to believe that you could be an accountant and still be this unsophisticated about how a professional sports team actually operates. I think you pretend to try and advance your crusade. I'm unsophisticated and you believe everything KW tells you about White Sox money. The proof is in the pudding. They said they had no money and then in June the trade for Peavy and claim Rios. They obviously had money. If they had all this money laying around that was earmarked for player development, like you throw out as a possibility, I ask have they not learned their lesson? If they could develop some players. they wouldn't have the holes they have. I'm sorry but ballpark improvements would be inaccurate for the White Sox. They don't own the park. They don't pay for improvements. They started their other business. It was money for that. There was no cash call. I know that for a fact. Do some research on the IPO non offering. Its pretty interesting, and its not just JR, its every owner. Many of the same guys who own the White Sox also own the Bulls. Look how they operate. They can't even play with a full roster because the organization, one that Forbes estimates made $51 million in profit last year, refuses to sign a minimum wage guy because it will take them over the luxury threshold and while not turning them unprofitable, it will cut into the profit a couple of million. What's funny is when the White Sox paid $5 million to Tucson so they could move to Phoenix, you guys used that as $5 million that couldn't be used on the payroll. I suggested it came from a different source than payroll and was talked down to.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 08:32 PM) The funny part of your first paragraph is I remember very specifically an argument we had on this very topic sometime around late May or Early June were I posted the attendance numbers being down as justification of why the Sox were justified in cutting payroll, and you couldn't accept that. Now apparently it is OK because attendance was down? The Sox knew attendance would be lower, and tried to protect themselves by raising more money, which apparently was wrong. Then the Sox end up having lower attendance, like they thought, but they should have spent more money all along? I don't know about you, but I when I have lost my job in the past, I go out and spend all of my money, because I have it. I don't plan for the future, or the worst case scenario... And there is nothing I have ever read that said the money was available in Feb that was there in June. You don't know that for a fact, and you have zero proof of it. Without having any idea how the season was going to go, there very well could have been money approved in June that was not available in Feb because, I don't know if you noticed or not, but we were in the biggest economic freefall in this country in about 80 years. Without some common-sense, we could be the Tigers right now, selling off parts to the highest bidder. Instead in that environment our management team put us in a position of strength that the organization put together extra money to be able to add to this team. I know it makes for better drama if the Sox are always wrong, but it doesn't make any sense the way you present it. As for the rest of it, it gets personal as usual. Could you do me one favor though... If you are going to go that route, come up with some new ones. Every single time we have this argument you pull the three year old tactic of "you like them better" out. I have posted to that multiple times. Google it, rinse, and repeat. Or I can just pull out, "Did Kenny run over your dog and is that why you hate him so much?" for every time that BS gets posted by you? As for the attendance, where was the spike to lead to an increase?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 08:26 PM) Player development, funds earmarked to pay for ballpark improvements, funds from other investment projects, such as Silver Chalice Ventures, future budgets, etc.,. There are a myriad of other areas they could have taken funds from. But wouldn't that go against the every dime that comes in goes out line they like to use, especially when they try to make it seem like its for players? If they have extra millions for player development not being used, I would have to question why. BTW, they don't pay for ballpark improvements.

Per the NY Post: Apparently, MLB Advanced Media, which we’ve reported before as heading for an IPO, won’t be doing so anytime in the near future, reports NYP. The reason: the baseball team owners were afraid to reveal too much about their wealth right before contract talks with the players... Despite months of pitches by Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, First Boston and J.P. Morgan, the baseball team owners couldn’t be convinced that reaping a few billion dollars was worth the light that would be shone on their business operations and personal fortunes. Some stats on MLBAM: each of the 30 teams team kicked in $1 million a year for four years. But only $70 million to $75 million of the pledged $120 million was ever used before the site started generating excess cash in only its second year. That means each team’s $3 million investment in Advanced Media could now be worth $100 million if the valuation comes in at only $3 billion, which is not unlikely.