Dick Allen

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 2, 2016 -> 11:20 AM) I tend to agree with you. Eaton is a hard guy to move unless you get an absolute haul. He should be a key piece of the long-term efforts to rebuild and while I am a proponent of moving prospects, moving a guy as good as Eaton, who should have his peak years ahead of them and is around that long, just doesn't make much sense unless you get totally blown away. That said, if you move Eaton, at least you are moving him at a time when his value should be high (coming off of a career year). I think offensively he will be better. Advanced metric-wise, he will have a hard time replicating his 2016 season, but if anything, that shows a flaw in the system. If he doesn't get assists because no one will run on him, that should be worth some WAR. It's like All Pro corners who go from 8 INTs to 1 or 2. They don't throw the ball their way. Doesn't mean they weren't as valuable. n

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 2, 2016 -> 09:42 AM) Looking from the outside in, the fact that they are talking about moving Adam Eaton to me is a clue that there might be some smoke to all of the clubhouse stuff. Not according to Merkin. Besides, Hahn said all of their players are available. They must all be assholes.

If all what people have in their imagination is true, bad clubhouse, won't age well, at his peak...why wouldn't other teams know this, and if they did, why would they offer the motherload of packages for him? I'll hang up and listen for my answer. I actually think he will age well. I think he will hit more homers. He doesn't attempt many steals so he won't get beat up on the basepaths, and he's so little, he has a small strike zone and knows it pretty well. I think being little if you get generate some power, is an advantage aging. The swing isn't as long, etc.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 2, 2016 -> 09:20 AM) Those midmarket teams had a deep farm system behind their adam eatons. We have a single promising draft class 3 years away. Isn't trading Sale etc. supposed to change that? I understand people would love to read how Keith Law raves about the White Sox minor leaguers, but it doesn't always translate to huge runs. Giving up good players with a lot of control for prospects is playing with fire.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 2, 2016 -> 09:14 AM) I don't really want to move Adam Eaton, but in the back of my head, I don't know if his level of maturity would make him the kind of guy you want around during a rebuild. Dude was one of the big antagonists during the Adam LaRoche mess last year. It isn't hard to squint your eyes and see an Adam Eaton meltdown if Chris Sale is dealt. Part of it was he was the player rep. According to Merkin, he is a great clubhouse guy. I know, what else is Merkin going to say, but he could say nothing. Eaton's supposed reputation as trouble is pretty much BS. The D-Backs had a bad clubhouse and unnamed players ripped everyone they traded from being too loud to being to quiet.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 2, 2016 -> 09:09 AM) Or his value is at an all time high and might net you more than a few good prospects back. I'm fine with keeping Adam but if you get blown away by someone then go ahead and move him. But you are pretty much hoping the prospects turn out as good as he has been. Considering his production and contract, I don't understand taking on the risk. If some of the mid level market teams traded their Adam Eatons before they made their runs, they would never had made their runs. It would have to be a no doubt blown away offer, or it makes no sense.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 2, 2016 -> 09:03 AM) I could go either way here, but with the way he plays I would be more surprised that this wasn't his career year. But I don't think it's obvious and it would be a joy to watch him 5 more years, he could just as easily be a juan pierre type that finds himself with a long career as a speedy leadoff type. His offensive numbers the last 2 years were pretty consistent. He is what he is, and that is really good. He has a lot of control. He is not Juan Pierre at all. He draws walks and can throw, and hits home runs.

It's cutting off your nose to spite your face. Besides, he has 5 years of control. Those guys are not available. We have a thread. For the longest time, we all knew the White Sox needed a leadoff hitter, with a high on base, who could run. The Sox get that, and he comes with GG quality defense. Sign him to a team friendly extension, has 5 years of control....quick, get rid of him. It will work out perfectly.

Not necessarily news, but it could effect when the White Sox start doing things, the first installment on season ticket accounts is due Monday. So they might not start a purge until Tuesday.

I just can't see a team giving Avi his arb figure. If you absolutely must bring him back, is there any restriction on resigning him to a lower figureafter non tendering?

QUOTE (Baron @ Dec 1, 2016 -> 09:04 PM) That's pushing it Yeah those comments ripping him were good. Not top 15 maybe 17 and 21. What's the difference? If it were an exact science, it would be significant.

Considering his Twitter hasn't mentioned the White Sox since that day he changed his description, I think we know the answer. Maybe they are trying to trade him.

QUOTE (CWSpalehoseCWS @ Dec 1, 2016 -> 08:28 PM) Couldn't agree more. I love having Eaton on the Sox, but he is not the type of player you want in a rebuilding situation. I think his antics would really get the better of him playing for a losing team for the next few years. I think Eaton rep is bas d on BS. For one thing he is or at least was the player rep. Those guys usually aren't the guys half the team despises. Also I listened to a podcast with Merkin, a guy who unlike any of us, spends time in the clubhouse. He referred to Eaton as a great clubhouse guy. Here is an article on his "bad attitude ". Seems pretty harmless to me. http://thecomeback.com/theoutsidecorner/20...as-selfish.html

Merkin thinks 2 of Sale, Q, Rodon get traded.

QUOTE (Knuckles @ Dec 1, 2016 -> 03:33 PM) Tough luck, wish him a full recovery. I'm not saying he's not any good, but wouldn't pencil him as your starting CF either. I don't think anyone thinks the Sox acquired a future all star CF for Zach Duke. But you never know, he could be decent. Like was posted above, probably better than Shuck.

QUOTE (RegionSox @ Dec 1, 2016 -> 03:01 PM) It sounds like he pressured players to play through injuries So he's Beckman with a little better football acumen. He had just signed a 6 year extension a year ago. I wonder if he will be like Beckman and not get paid. Supposedly he had $11 million left on his contract and he took $542,000 to go away. He must have done something bad.

Jack Trudeau is doing cartwheels. One report was Wilson was messing with at least one guy with a concussion.

QUOTE (Knuckles @ Dec 1, 2016 -> 01:28 PM) He didn't exactly looked like KGJr out there in the very few games he's played. How many games was it? He got hurt. What could be more Griffey-esque than that?

Cutler having surgery done for the year, and perhaps done as a Bear.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Dec 1, 2016 -> 11:20 AM) I keep seeing this. What's the new determinant? Best record of the combatants. They play entirely different schedules.

I'm pretty sure Adam Dunn is the only player the White Sox have ever signed that would cost the Sox a draft pick with the new rules, assuming he would have been given a QO.

I would hate to be an A's fan. Getting phased out of the revenue sharing program for penny pinching is going to hurt. They received $34 million free in 2015.

I just wonder how they determine contract size over $50 million if there are incentives and things that trigger contracts becoming guaranteed. If you sign a guy to a contract that guarantees $49 million for 3 years, but he gets another 3 years and $60 million guaranteed after his first plate appearance, is there draft pick forfeiture? You would think if you are giving someone $50 million plus, a second round pick shouldn't me so much to you, but it might make the guys right on the $50 million worth line have to accept shorter term contracts.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 1, 2016 -> 07:44 AM) Players didn't try hard solely because of home-field advantage. They tried hard way before that rule was implemented and they will keep trying as hard in the future. The nature of the sport is why the MLB game is the most popular and players try harder. Mike Trout going 100% for 3 at-bats and a few fly balls is a a lot different than LeBron giving full effort on offense and defense for 20+ minutes or Von Miller trying to run through a left tackle to destroy a QB or running back 15-20 times. Nothing will change as far as your All-Star viewing experience goes. I think there will be a little less intensity, but not much and it was dumb to give the WS home field to the winner of the All Star Game. I also think it's dumb to give it to the team with the best record because they play totally different schedules. I would like it given to the league with the best interleague record, or just alternate it like they used to do it. Home field in the WS is a big deal because of the different rules. At least in the other sports the rules are the same for every conference.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 30, 2016 -> 09:19 AM) Thats not a big difference. 24 GMs had the same misguided opinion about Trout, and who knows, maybe a few after the 25th pick would have thought the same thing. But you are hanging it on KW like he was the only one, when he was not Yes, last year, people wanted to be like the Royals. They passed on all 3. So did Billy Beane, although in Beane's defense, he did get Addison Russell in the Seager draft. A guy who he traded for 2 months of the Shark. If the Sox do that, they are all time bad laughingstocks. Could you imagine if the Sox had pick 12 in the 2009 draft and drafted Aaron Crowe instead of Mike Trout. Or the 4th pick in the 2010 draft and drafted Christian Colon instead of Chris Sale, or had the 5th pick in 2012 and drafted Kyle Zimmer instead of Cory Seager? Yet many want to be like the Royals who know how to draft and develop.