Dick Allen

Abbatacola should have given himself a radio name before he started. He probably would have made it easier on his career.

I believe framing is a real stat unlike some, but I do wonder if it gets to a point where an umpire will see a catcher always posting good framing numbers, and start to use it against him. They are human. I am sure they see these lists. If Tyler Flowers always gets balls called strikes, couldn't it eventually lead to an umpire calling what he considers borderline pitches thrown to him balls because they figured his framing has given them an illusion?

I'd see if there was any way possible to make him a LF or CF. He's running out of time. But if you could get him for nothing, it's not like he's blocking good prospects. He doesn't need a great arm. Can't see how his would be any worse than Juan Pierre, or Lance Johnson, or the future HOFer, Tim Raines. Coco Crisp has had a pretty nice career throwing flyballs back to the infield. It's a long shot, he's getting old to be a prospect, but for free or next to it, why not?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 08:00 PM) On the one hand, I agree with what you're saying. On the other, facts clearly no longer matter so bring on the Trump piss jokes by the bucket full. I'm not saying it is true, I hope it's not, but a lot of people are saying.......

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 12:59 PM) With the extra year of control, does that make the expectation on the return for Q equivalent to that of Sale, or in excess of it? Or does it not matter, and we should expect something slightly less? Can't quite gauge what this outcome ought to be. I think it will come out less in ranking. But not by much. When it's all said and done, it might turn into more.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 12:55 PM) I still think all of this is just talk. He's gone before pitchers report, and probably before Soxfest. They definitely don't want the 2017 season to be all about "when will Q get traded". That is the one huge problem with waiting for the deadline.

QUOTE (hi8is @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 12:52 PM) I will say this, wouldn't be surprised if Hahn is asking for more than Sale for Q He should. You can always negotiate down. The higher the starting point, the higher the end point.

QUOTE (buhbuhburrrrlz @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 12:41 PM) NY_KnicksPR ‏@NY_KnicksPR 9m9 minutes ago Derrick Rose has rejoined the team and has been fined. He is expected to be in uniform tomorrow in Philadelphia. I'm glad he's OK. Now back to the bashing. I wonder if his fine will be more than the $260k he gets paid per game. If he truly failed to contact the team, it's a joke he isn't suspended.

You don't give teams a deadline, because they know it's totally BS. There is no reason Q has to be traded immediately. You can leak a trade is imminent and see if that doesn't get something going. When it got out that the Red Sox became the frontrunners for Sale, the Nats up their "final offer". It still wasn't enough, but you may get someone to play their entire hand. These teams know Hahn is talking to everyone. As long as they don't sense anything is really close, there is no motivation making their best offer.

Unless it's just the dishonest media being dishonest, Mexico insists it will not pay for the wall Trump is building and claiming we will be reimbursed. He may have to send them a tweet.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 08:19 PM) D. Rose missed the game tonight and people don't know where he is. Hope he's ok Kind of scary.

When DRose chucks up 17 shots or more, the Knicks are 1-12.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 02:16 PM) Unlike the White Sox, they won 98 games the year before... They don't take that into consideration during the 2016 season. They were not in contention in 2016. Their window was closed. Maybe it re-opens, maybe it doesn't. But to say they are in year 5 is ignoring year 4.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 02:08 PM) And has a top ten CF prospect ready to step in its place? Looking at his brief stay in AAA, it looks like he may not be ready quite yet, but I would take him.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 02:06 PM) That's a completely different issue. The Pirates payroll constraints have no bearing on future payroll constraints that the Sox might or might not have. The Pirates' contention window, however, is starting Year 5 and looks likely to extend for the next couple years. I'd take that window for the Sox... The had just as many wins in 2016 as the White Sox.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 12:34 PM) Trump's/GOP's tax plans will also almost definitely include removing the estate tax, something that only effects estates of $5.34M or more. It will allow the McCaskeys to keep the Bears.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 12:20 PM) I f***ing hate the mindset that trading for too much pitching is a bad thing. Do you guys remember how much trash was in the back end of the rotation during the Sale/Q days? Humber, Paulino, Danks, Latos, Noesi, Shields, just to name a few. That is one of the main reasons why those teams were never any good. The back end of the rotation was a black hole. Having a full 5 man rotation that has talent and potential is the real goal here. I'm absolutely okay with the Sox acquiring Glasnow/Keller if they get Bell, Newman, Hayes, etc. There is no such thing as too much pitching or too much hitting if the object is to win as much as possible. That said, I think the White Sox have to concentrate on position player acquistions. They have been about as poor as you can be developing them, and will need them. This was a bad offense that lost it's best offensive player. In 2 or 3 or 4 years, attrition will take away a couple more of their better offensive players. If they can't develop them, they are running out of trade chips. They need to use Q to get some hitters someone else developed.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 12:07 PM) Right after a guy has been in the big leagues for 3 months is, I'd say, a pretty poor time to trade him. You'd be taking what might be the worst performances of his career and having people trade for them based on that. Like trading Fulmer now or Rodon mid-2015 - if you're moving them then teams aren't paying "top 10 in MLB prospect" talent for them. If you're bringing guys up, you need to give them a year or two, sometimes more, to establish themselves. You remain correct they won't all stay there, but if Glasnow and Giolito walk a lot of people and have ERAs in the 4s this year and early next year, are you ready to trade them for a weak return just to clear space for Kopech? Or are you trading Rodon then and starting over? Or are you giving up on one of them and putting them in the bullpen. Basically, if everything works well, you've created a sticky situation for yourself. If any one guy struggles, you're debating whether to give up on a 24 year old to replace him with a 21 year old. That's not how you deal with developing pitchers, that's thinking like these guys are big league regulars. Again, if everything works well, you haven't created a sticky situation. There will be always be innings, and the game is changing. The days of 5 starters is going by the boards. Guys at the beginning of their careers are usually on innings limits. Some guy, if needed, could be a guy who goes 3 or 4 innings in the middle. Putting guys in the bullpen is not giving up on them. The game is changing. Bullpens are becoming even more important. How much value did Giolito lose struggling initially? Rodon struggled, how much trade value did he lose?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 11:58 AM) Are you willing to put Kopech in the bullpen to give them a couple years to develop at the big league level? Depends on the situation. How many teams use 5 starters an entire season? If the White Sox have too much pitching, they can always trade it. To think they will have 6 prospects all studs, and all deserving being in a major league rotation, and they won't be able to accommodate is zany. I want them to trade Q for positon players, but not because they won't have room for another starter.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 11:46 AM) Right there's the problem - just from guys in the organization already you've listed 5 starters, all of whom we can legitimately expect to be demanding big league innings by the 2nd half of 2018 barring injury. Add in Glasnow...and which guy doesn't get a big league shot? Or which guy goes to the bullpen? If you give me a guy like Keller, fine he gets stuck at A ball this year and he's not arriving until 2019 at the earliest and by then we'll at least have given those top 5 a chance to see if any of them are going to flop, he's down there with Hansen so there's continuing depth building up, but the slash you've already put in there shows the problem. You're not running out a 6 person rotation in 2018, and you're not going to cut one of those guys loose if they struggle in 2017 in their first callup. If all those guys were to work out to where they deserve to be in a major league rotation, it can't be classified a problem.

If the plan is to eventually trade pitching from a surplus for some offense, considering how difficult it has been to develop hitters, perhaps they should use their biggest trade chip pitcher to acquire the hitters. That would be Q. Trading him for more pitching at best will wind up no gain.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 09:31 AM) I really like Glasnow as a prospect, but was just mentioning that he has not thrown strikes consistently at all. Scouting reports suggest he can develop into a #2 or #3 starter if the command comes along If that is the scouting report, I don't know why anyone would trade a #1 or #2 starter signed for 4 years at a bargain for a package headlined by a guy who might be almost as good if everything goes right.

I normally don't object to minor league deals, but this is a bad player, bad actor, getting older, who plays positions you have plenty of mediocreish guys you can look at instead. I would imagine this is a Rick Renteria deal from his SD days.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 7, 2017 -> 06:10 PM) Given that i don't think he is actually a loss, this adds another warm body. More people = more chance to find an average major leaguer somewhere. If this is a loss of a player, well then I haven't seen a convincing argument that the lost player has a better chance of being an average major leaguer than the guy picked up. The chances of 27 year old Jason Coats becoming an average major leaguer aren't very good.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 7, 2017 -> 04:51 PM) I honestly don't think Coats is definitively no good, but I don't think there's much ceiling there so I don't begrudge the Sox for risking him. Yes. If the goal is sustained excellence, a guy with a mediocre ceiling is no big loss, if he is a loss.