Dick Allen

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 17, 2009 -> 04:08 PM) Do you consider W. Mark Felt to be a rat? How about Bonds and the rest, they took a steroid needle in the ass to make more cash? Seems like they would be pretty big rats. I'm saying if Jose Canseco, a guy who first said steroids were good for you but changed his tune when he could make more money, is a hero figure to anyone, I really feel sorry for that person. Didn't Canseco a couple months ago regret naming names? Now that ARod is out there, he's thinking another sequel.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 17, 2009 -> 04:03 PM) And when they got caught, they were not just laughed at, they were also tossed out of games, suspended, etc. The unique problem with steroids is, unlike a substance on the ball, scuffing, or even corking a bat, there is no evidence that can be observed on the field. Yes, people have cheated and gotten away with it, but that does not make it right, nor absolve those who are entrusted to run the game, their responsibility to catch those that cheat and punish them. Why is getting caught the end all? Listen to Hawk talk about corking bats. He laughs about it. He talks about guys scuffing balls and throwing spitters, again, they laugh. Cheating is cheating. What's unique about steroids is it benefits both hitter and pitcher. More pitchers threw in the 90s during the steroid era than ever before. The hitters are the ones, except for Clemens, who are being hung here, even guys like Sosa who never has been caught. Has there been one pitcher other than the Rocket with zero positive tests that has even been speculated about? I think that's one thing that's lost here. The pitchers these guys were facing were doing the exact same thing.

QUOTE (tonyho7476 @ Feb 17, 2009 -> 03:55 PM) I'd say so. So you aren't a Tyler Flowers guy.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 17, 2009 -> 03:49 PM) We all know the losers in baseball's steroid era, how about a few people that may look like heroes in the retelling. Frank Thomas for not and (possibly) Jose Canseco for coming clean and naming names. Others? Canseco is a rat, and while he may be the big whistle-blower, he shouldn't be a hero. He opened his mouth for cash.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 17, 2009 -> 03:40 PM) Perhaps I am missing your point. I believe since he was getting $250 mil, he knew what was in his contract, what could null and void the contract, exactly what he was taking, and that it was illegal. He knowingly cheated to get his $250 mil. Players have cheated in baseball ever since they started playing. Why is taking steroids so bad, but throwing spitballs, scuffing balls, taking amphetimines, corking bats..etc. just laughed at as part of the game? I used to think I wouldn't want any PED users on the White Sox, but the more I think about it, they were just looking for an edge just like everyone else was doing other things. The home run record may be sacred, but if it really is, why did they expand the season? Where's the outrage there? Why aren't people complaining about smaller more hitter friendly parks? And oh, by the way, pitchers percentage-wise probably use PEDs more often or at least as often as hitters. If Barry Bonds faces Roger Clemens, shouldn't that be a wash?

QUOTE (tonyho7476 @ Feb 17, 2009 -> 03:22 PM) Its all such garbage...more people are involved...by saying its a cousin in the dominican, he's trying to keep people from digging deeper. He's a piece of crap like the rest of them...a rich piece of crap...but still a piece of crap. Are all PED users pieces of crap? Just interested, because at one time, I thought they were, but I've changed.

I'm not sure the weight loss is being determined by the amount he weighed when he went down. He does look trimmer than any time he has been with the White Sox but I heard yesterday he had gone up to 270 eating his mom's cooking in the offseason. The numbers are probably from there. He's probably 10-15 lbs lighter than when he last pitched.

QUOTE (3E8 @ Feb 16, 2009 -> 11:09 PM) You're such a dick, allen He clearly says in the original post that a few are "about the same". What, can we only call them same if the dollar amount matches exactly Actually,my original post was not directed at him, it was shock that Minnesota could remain the same because they have guys who were getting big bumps and their roster is almost identical. I think Young is getting about $300k less, but everyone else should be higher. Almost like Philadelphia who had a huge increase, but didn't change much personnel-wise except lost Burrell and added Ibanez. Then he got personal.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Feb 16, 2009 -> 02:07 PM) I never thought Contreras looked so heavy that he needed to lose that much weight. In fact, I always thought he looked to be in great shape regardless I agree, but I think he was heavier last year than he had been. He's proportioned well. It looks like Jenks hasn't gone to nutrisystem during the winter, and it appears Ozzie doesn't care anymore. He may look like a taller version of Bob Wickman in a couple of years.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 16, 2009 -> 03:18 PM) Like I said, you can call it whatever you want. Anymore nits to pick? That would require doing some of your own work though, instead of just picking apart what others say. Sorry to point out an error in your "research". I'll go to timeout for 15 minutes.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 16, 2009 -> 03:09 PM) Feel free to do your own research and make your own post anytime. I know I won't be holding my breath. If KW "raised" the payroll $3-4 million, you certainly wouldn't be calling it the "same". Your last sentence is really uncalled for.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 16, 2009 -> 02:47 PM) If you did the research you would see they are sitting at about $60 million after being at $57 million last year. If you want to call that higher, that's fine with me. $2-3 million is hardly worth mentioning IMO. Their owner also said there is room to add, so I have it right now at $61 million. Its about 7% higher + they may add Crede or someone else. I'm sure if your boss told you that your would be getting an additional 7% added to your paycheck, you would call it a raise.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Feb 16, 2009 -> 02:20 PM) But teams like the Royals and Rays couldn't go much lower. And the Padres were being sold by an owner going through a divorce, so that explains that. But other than that, it is really amazing. I think what would be even more interesting to see is how much higher/lower these teams are going? For instance, are the teams that are cutting decreasing at a significantly higher rate than the adding teams are increasing? Either way, the economy is going to affect all sports for years to come...and if there was ever a time for the owners to push for a salary cap in baseball, now would be the time. Minnesota's remaining the same seems impossible to me. Nathan got an extension. Mourneau and Mauer had to get raises, and they pretty much are bring the rest of the roster back in tact.

Good thing he's not a Cub. Losing all that weight would mean he was on roids.

QUOTE (Gregory Pratt @ Feb 15, 2009 -> 12:53 PM) yeah, me neither Would it really surprise anyone if Gavin Floyd was back to awful in 2009?

Maybe by the time his contract expires, we all will be glad he's retiring. 3 seasons is a long time for a pitcher.

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Feb 12, 2009 -> 04:37 PM) Yeah, but the major benchmark for success in 2009 should not be winning a s***ty division and putting ourselves in a position to win 1 out of 4 playoff games against much stronger AL teams. If they win the division, anything can happen. It would be better if they could win it without going into overtime, so they can set their pitching up, but winning the division should be the goal. A weaker division helps. I don't ever buy a team is built to win a division but not to win playoff series. After winning it all, winning a division and losing in the first round isn't thought of as highly as it once was.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 12, 2009 -> 04:23 PM) You are reading waaaaaaay too deeply into that statement and turning it into a 100% truism. I never said they completely abandoned common sense. It would be really stupid to add payroll to the point where you know you are going to have a loss in total revenues. As I said when you pulled out that tired Fukodome/Hunter arguement before, times have changed. Just because the team was willing to spend money last year, doesn't mean they are now. If the economy was the same as last year, I have no doubt the payroll would be the same, or even higher this year. There are years of history that prove that out, as compared to the anecdotal hypothesis with zero flexibility you are trying to paint this as. Failure to recognize that times have changed is the type of stupidity that turns you into the Phoenix Coyotes. Have you ever disagreed with anything KW has said. 1,000,000 posts, I'd like to see one. You're brainwashed. The fact is since you've used Forbes as a reference before, this is a team, especially with all the money they have coming off the books next year, that can easily take on a lot more money and not be the Phoenix Coyotes. I've never suggested they do that, but what have they done with Forbes estimate of $70 million in profits for those 3 seasons? Don't say put it in the payroll because that $70 million includes the additional payroll. If you have listened to JR and Brooks Boyer, they aren't anticipating this massive loss of revenue you are projecting obviously with KW's "can't spend $1 if you only have $.50" playing in your ears. Season ticket sales, according to Brooks in Craine's, is actually up this year. The White Sox don't play in Detroit. Last year they were coming off a 90 loss season and had no problem making payroll. They have a better beginning point this year and will have just as much money to play with, if not more. I'm hoping KW's crying poor is a smokescreen and will add players when teams can't make payroll during the season.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 12, 2009 -> 04:08 PM) So you don't think it is reasonable for them to cut costs in the worst economy in recent history? If I am drunk on Kool-aid, you need to be putting down the Hateorade. OK Stacey King. You just said they raise payroll by the margin of money they make the previous season, even though Forbes says they make a profit even after raising and paying payroll, $70 million combined for seasons 2005,2006,2007. I pointed out that BEFORE this crisis hit, they wanted Hunter or Fukudome and were willing to spend at least $50 million to get them. They didn't, and although JR is saying even with this economy attendance shouldn't be too affected and the raising of ticket prices which will more than cover the loss of 2 sponsors even if they are not replaced, which isn't happening, they will cut payroll. So, being zero sum as you say, they must have lost money last year, even with 3 extra home games and would have really been stuck this year had Hunter or Fukudome signed because contracts like those or Dye's, or Konerko's or Thome's aren't moving anywhere unless you pick up similar money.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 12, 2009 -> 03:40 PM) Its a myth in the narrowed sense of the term. In reality the payroll fluxuations pretty much match the profits from year over year. So they lost money last year, even with a couple of extra dates, and they really didn't want to sign Hunter or Fukudome. C'mon, you're not that drunk on the Kool-Aid. For the record, I have no problem with their payroll, I do have problems with raising ticket prices and lowering payroll, but there are some things that if you really think about it, are difficult to buy.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 12, 2009 -> 03:31 PM) I haven't heard anyone say it won't affect the bottom line. Do you have a link or something? With a zero sum operation, I am assuming that the money has to come from somewhere until proven otherwise. The zero sum operation is a myth. It is virtually imposssible to break exactly even every year. The $5 million will affect it, but they will make money of this in the long run, and they have been planning this for a few years, so chances are the money was most likely budgeted for years. JR's real edict is to not operate in the red. He doesn't care if he doesn't make anything, but just don't lose anything. That usually results in a profit, unless Forbes is way off. 2005-2007 seasons, they supposedly made a total of $70 million in profit, AFTER meeting their heightened payroll.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Feb 12, 2009 -> 03:23 PM) 1 - In 2006 we were coming off a 72-90 season. In 2007, we're coming off a 89-74 season. 2 - In ST last year, it looked for a minute like both BA and JO would be starting in our OF. That won't be happening this season. 3 - John Danks and Gavin Floyd took big steps upwards, and entering 2008 they were big question marks. Danks has put on 15 extra pounds of muscle, and I'm probably more worried about Gavin out of the 2. Still they should put up ERA's around 4 I'm thinking. 4 - We know that we have a stud player in CQ now. When healthy, he's proven over his minor and major league career that he can produce. That's the key for him, to stay healthy. 5 - Entering 2008, I thought Javier Vazquez was our best pitcher, and we were going with 2 unproven young guys in Danks and Floyd. That's not the case this season. 6 - Our bullpen looks to be a plus again, entering 2008 we didn't know how good it was going to be. Adding Poreda to the mix could give the Sox a serious weapon of the pen also. The team coming into last season didn't appear to have any hope of winning a championship. I personally don't think this team does either, but stranger things have happened.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 12, 2009 -> 03:08 PM) Why not? Its $5 million coming out of the teams budget. Where else would it come from? To begin with, there will be some accounting taking place that will make this expense a lot less than $5 million in actual cost. Do you think they don't separate expenses? Do you think if they hire another guy to print tickets at the box office, it will be that much less for player salaries? There are different budgets for different departments. While in theory, that would still mean there is less money to give to the salary budget, this is an expense that can be made up over time. Obviously, there is something that makes it worth it to them to pay the $5 million, and its not going to be at the expense of their baseball team. I am willing to bet if you asked KW and JR about it, they will tell you it has no effect. Spring training expenses will be cut down as well as revenues rising. Forbes says they make as much profit as any team in baseball, and there's really no reason not to believe them, if you believe all of their other numbers.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Feb 12, 2009 -> 02:37 PM) Well for starters I'm a lot more confident in this team right now than I was this time last season. That should tell you something about the moves KW has made. Here's the problem I have, the White Sox made the playoffs by the skin of their teeth last year. Will Quentin and Ramirez be able to maintain their performance levels or improve them? Can you reasonably ask Gavin Floyd to be as good or better than he was last year? Can you do the same with Danks? Can Colon hold up? Clayton Richard and/or Jeff Marquez better be a lot better than they were last year. Is Linebrink going to be the guy he was before his injury or the guy who should be pitching for Home Run Derby after he came back? Will Fields, Lillibridge and/or Owens perform better in the major leagues in 2009 than they did in the minor leagues in 2008? Will Dye, Thome, Konerko and Pierzynski be able to hold off father time one more season? Can you reasonably suspect Detroit to be the total trainwreck they were last year? Can you expect Cleveland to be as bad as they were in the first half last year? One or two no answers to the previous questions spell no playoffs IMO.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 12, 2009 -> 02:21 PM) So that is about a 10% decline, which isn't too far off of what the Sox have cut off of their payroll from last year to this, once extra costs such as the spring training buyout are included. Spring Training buyout should in no way effect 2009 payroll. If it means the White Sox can't add an Orlando Hudson, I'm sure White Sox fans everywhere would say they should just ride out their obligation to Tucson. They will be making more money in Phoenix.