Dick Allen

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 03:36 PM) That's such a short sighted philosophy. Pace's job right now is to add talent. Pace did that job well last year. In FA he completely revamped the LBs, turning that position into a strength. He added 3 starters - two of whom look like truly impact talent - in the draft. They need to address the secondary, and they need to address the QB position this year, but if Pace has a great draft and they only win 6 games, Pace is still doing his job - adding talent to a bad roster. . He needs to add talent that can actually stay on the field. White, Goldman, Floyd, they all might be great, but if they can't stay on the field they aren't good picks. His free agents have had a tough time staying on the field as well.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 04:49 PM) Used to go every Friday, have not gone since they made Friday exclusive to the weekend package holders. It was an awesome event when I would go years ago. Worked downtown it was a hop skip and jump to either venue and a good time. Event took a hit when it moved to Palmer House and now is just an afterthought. The Hyatt, I think it was was really cool. Palmer House seemed crammed in on many floors and the event kind of sucked the last couple of times I went. Seems like an indicative move of the club with the crappy venue for that and the crappy stadium name. Every aspect of the organization seems to be floundering although the new scoreboard was nice. It's not at the Palmer House anymore. It's at the Hilton on Michigan. It's much better than the Palmer House set up. More like the Hyatt.

QUOTE (Deadpool @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 02:53 PM) But they don't let it get in the way of the job at hand. They, like Benetti (and Stone, for that matter), get excited when it's appropriate, but they don't start yelling at umpires or whining about umpiring when the next guy is up to bat. Hawk shatters like a broken glass whenever anything unexpected happens and Stone has to do Hawks job to keep the broadcast coherent. Get excited hen it's appropriate? I suppose it would be up to you to determine when it's appropriate, but it does contradict what you wrote. You just wrote we don't understand the broadcast is supposed to be impartial. If that is what you want, why even have the sound on? You can see if a pitch is a strike or the ball his hit to the SS. They flash the stats and the score and the pitch count and the pitch speed on the screen. You want a boring broadcast, it's easy to achieve.

QUOTE (Deadpool @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 02:42 PM) Most great broadcasters limit their partiality in order to not lose sight of their jobs. A play-by-play person is meant to give play-by-play, not cheer along with the fans or curse umpires. Of course you don't understand. You want your announcer to be your best friend. The rest of us deserve a real broadcaster for both home and road games. That's a career-long award, but the Hawk they wish to honor no longer calls White Sox games. He's been horrible for a decade. The only one who doesn't understand is you. There isn't a local broadcast in professional sports that is impartial. Even your boys Len and whoever his partner get excited when the Cubs are winning. Not as excited as you perhaps, but not exactly impartial. The only person who thinks having a passion for the White Sox is a negative is you.

QUOTE (Deadpool @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 02:27 PM) I don't know why people 1) Require their announcers to love the team 2) Don't understand that the broadcast team is meant to be professional and reasonably inpartial 3) Think Hawk is a broadcaster So a local telecast being beamed out to White Sox fans trying to sell the White Sox is supposed to be impartial? That's pretty funny.

Who were the playmakers on the 2014 Bears defense? If their players are worse than they were 2 years ago, that's on Pace. The fact is 17 forced turnovers in 2015 set a franchise record low. The 11 this year shattered it. I don't know if it's coaching, what is emphasized, lack of players , luck, or all of the above, but it needs to change quickly. They have had no talent before and forced a lot more turnovers. Pace can draft 6 future Pro Bowlers in April, if the team is 6-10, neither he or Fox will be around for the annual post mortem press conference.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 12:53 PM) I think the bolded is the key. We saw this with Sale, and we may very well see it with Q if he's traded this offseason. Teams are only willing to give up so much. I think you can get the same for Q value-wise next offseason, or even in a year and half, as you can now. That doesn't mean you hold for the sake of holding, as there obviously is some risk there (but with Q its minimal), but you don't take a lesser package. You wait until your asking price (or at least what you realistically would take - see Sale trade), is met. I have been harping on this since before Sale was traded. Yeah technically he will be worth less as time goes by, but the package isn't going to be less unless he gets hurt or horrible for at least a year or year and a half.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 12:21 PM) You ever hear Vin Scully, Harry Caray, Jack Buck, Joe Buck, or Jason Benetti (who I actually like) tell you the difference between hitting ahead and behind in the count? I'll answer it because I have probably heard them more than you. No. I will say Stone does mention a lot more of Hawk's thoughts when he is doing a telecast with Jason.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 12:12 PM) There has also been talk, later denied, that LA is also working against MLB debt limits. There are ways around that. They could sell a non controlling small portion of the team like Ricketts, and problem solved. But I do think anyone with any desire to sign a Machado or Harper or Kershaw wants to be re-set on the luxury tax.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 12:02 PM) Hawk has been objectively bad at his job (like can't see what's going on, doesn't actually do any analysis) for years. 1995 Hawk isn't walking through that door and he's only going to get worse as his faculties (mental and physical) abandon him. Benetti is fine. It doesn't surprise me DA loves Hawk, of course he does... LMAO.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 11:22 AM) Hawk is good for only one part of the broadcast now - emotional cues. That's it. His insight is restricted to Yaz, Catfish Hunter and Buehrle. He gets angry in the booth at every slight - big, small or imagined. He relies on catch phrases in lieu of analysis (that's a Kansas City special!) and tries to suppress Stone constantly. When the Sox are good, it's great to have Hawk for emotion. It's the one thing Benetti lacks. I'm much more inclined to believe that Jason, as he gets more comfortable, will begin to provide emotion than I am that Hawk will give a single piece of insight regarding the future team that we haven't heard before. I never once heard Hawk mention Yaz or Catfish during a 2016 telecast. Hawk offers a lot more insight than his detractors want to admit. He was talking about Frazier pulling off the ball. Many would think if you are pulling off the ball, you might want to stand closer to the plate. Hawk told everyone he should back off about 6 inches, all about the thought dictating the mechanics. Yes, he has slipped a bit, father time catches up to everyone. And he goes overboard on umpires, but the guy has been terrific. He was advanced before anyone had ever heard of sabermetrics. He has been yapping about working a count since he began. No one else did. He knew the importance of having 2 hitting coaches 30 years ago. Now most teams have 2. I hear about his huge ego. I doubt anyone who thinks his ego is so gigantic has ever met him. Truly one of the nicer most pleasant guys to fans that there is. He also says all the time the players today are a lot better than they were in his era. He really isn't as stuck in his ways and he and others want you to believe. He doesn't imbrance sabermetrics consciously, but everything sabermetrics embraces, he has embraced forever. He goes a little further believing there is also a human element to the game, which most people would agree. Hawk and Stone were better together in 2016. I just find it funny that without really knowing the issues between the 2, it's always assumed it's always Hawk's fault. Yeah, Stone works well with Jason, but Hawk works well with Stone's substitutes, and many people have mentioned meeting Steve as not being the most enjoyable experience. I read here a few years ago, he wouldn't sign baseballs on the sweet spot because he thought people would sell them, like there is a huge market for a Steve Stone signed baseball. Hawk has been great. He is slipping, but still gets the job done. If he wants to work 4 more years, the Sox owe it to him as long as he's able, to let that happen.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 02:22 PM) Fred Hoiberg might be a bad coach. Personnel is a much bigger issue though. They've drafted really poorly and added a bunch of guys that don't even fit what the HC wants to do. Hoiberg might be terrible but how could anyone tell? You're right. Expecting Hoiberg to win with last year's roster and this year's roster is a bit insane. But the 2 people who thought it wasn't unreasonable are Gar and Pax. Thibs was supposed to win, and when he couldn't he had to go, and they and JR couldn't kick him enough on the way out.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 11:54 AM) on his new years interview with David Schuster, he actually said that the roster was not athletic enough. Its one thing that we all know this, it is a completely different thing that Paxson said it. He is basically putting it on Gar I think Gar *might* get canned if this team keeps putting out these mediocre to bad efforts through january, but I dont think Hoiberg goes anywhere at least until next season. That was after Rondo said the same thing. They aren't athletic and they can't shoot 3's. How can that win? They are about to enter a stretch where they play good teams. It will be interesting to see what happens. If they can stay around .500, I would think nothing changes. If they tank, it would force them to do something. Right now that something seems to be releasing Rondo, which would be lame if that was the only response.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 11:51 AM) I have had this mindset but even I am beginning to be bored waiting for Q trade as I have basically now gone through every combination of players from 5 different teams in my head and now I just want closure. It's a Catch 22. You want this to come to a head, but then you have a draft, and minor league or reclamation project signings for another year or 2. Nothing earthshattering. Although it will be interesting to see what the plan is at C. I find it hard to believe the plan is Narvaez and Smith.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 11:41 AM) You know I'll believe in a quiet White Sox offseason when I see it. Moves will always be made with this front office, especially with the impending changes to the QO system. Moves will be made, but very minor ones, especially next offseason.

JR needs to call Pax, tell him to fire Gar, fire Fred, and tell him he needs to coach the team the rest of the season. The result should show whether Pax should resume his current job, or seek employment elsewhere.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 11:15 AM) Its been hard to be a Sox fan for a while. Incoherent roster construction, questionable signings, poor player development, lack of situational baseball IQ, have all made things pretty frustrating for quite a while. I know the team is going to suck and I feel OK with that, because every other year I thought they might have a shot they sucked anyway. At least this way my expectations are aligned with what we will see, and it will hopefully lead to a period of sustained success down the road. My point was many are fixated on a Q trade. Once he goes, and maybe a couple of lesser deals, there will be nothing. If you are bored to tears right now, it's going to last a while after something happens in the next few weeks. Next offseason will be about as boring for a Sox fan as it can get.

Fraizer had a higher WAR than Trumbo last season. And higher than Cutch. I find it hard to believe no one would eventually give up something decent for a 40 HR good clubhouse guy.

After the Sox trade Q and Robertson and Frazier or Melky, it's going to be really hard to be a White Sox fan. The team will absolutely suck, and next offseason there will be very little action. They will not have much to trade. They won't be signing big names.

Saladino isn't a bad player, but it is funny how some act like he is a rising 22 year old. He is older than Brett Lawrie, is injured just as much, and has a limited ceiling. He could be a decent player for a good team, but he is certainly not a must see what he can do guy. Get 135 starts? What evidence is there he could physically do that? How much more does anyone have to see to "see what he can do"? I think we pretty much know.

Isn't it kind of odd how the Bears kept Pace from dealing with the press this season? Shouldn't the GM be out there a bit more?

The Jags will have a top 5 pick for the 6th year in a row.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 1, 2017 -> 04:29 PM) Yes. Because I will look at "improvement" as a positive thing if you've picked a rookie QB, because that rookie would be expected to improve further in 2018. I will take 6-10 in that case. I will find "improvement" unacceptable as the only goal if you've added a more expensive, veteran QB, and likely given up draft picks to do it. In that case, playoff competition would be a minimum requirement based on the decisions they made - don't make decisions that sacrifice the future to compete in 2017 if you're not ready to fire everyone if you fail to compete in 2017. (this seems oddly relevant for this board. Anywho). If they added a rookie QB and still won 3 games, that would also be a major concern since that would mean they hadn't gotten anything else out of FA or the draft to improve on the lineup weaknesses. The problem is even if they do draft a QB, chances of him being the primary QB in 2017, are very slim. The 6-10 will be with a guy like Brian Hoyer under center.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 1, 2017 -> 04:18 PM) Is that with Tony Romo or Jimmy Gimnotlookinguphowtospellhisnametoday at QB, or is that with a 2nd round pick as their starting QB? Because if they trade for Romo and go 6-10 then fire everyone, GM included. If they trade for JG and go 6-10 then how did their QB play look while getting there? Does it matter? 6-10 is still 6-10 and shows the talent leve and or coaching is not up to snuff. It is amazing anyone would have any patience after 6-10, 3-13, and 6-10. The disaster that was Emery/Trestman was 8-8, 5-11. Love got canned after a 10-6. Fox is now in Abe Gibson territory after 2 years. I can't see how they would bring him back in 2018 if they didn't make the playoffs next year. If you are going to make a change unless a miracle happens, wouldn't it be better to move on now and restart the clock?

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 1, 2017 -> 03:50 PM) Right, that cant happen again. I doubt it will though. They have no corners, no QB, the safeties suck. They might not be 3-13 again, but can they be .500? Does 6-10 or 7-9 spell the end of Fox next year? Does it spell the end of Pace?