Dick Allen

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 04:22 PM) His buyout went from 8 to over 40 million dollars. Recruits knew he would still be coaching Iowa for the next 5 years already. His buyout was $8 million because it went down every year. It was over $20 million 2 or 3 years ago. I don't know why you are so concerned about Iowa wanting to lock up its very successful football coach. I am an alum and think it is a good move. Have been following the team since he was an assistant under Hayden, and am a bit more realistic IMO, of their chances to compete year after year. There are going to be down years. There are going to be great ones, they aren't winning a National Championship. And to think they should ne in the conversion for one isn't being realistic. Iowa is usually top 10 in Athlectic department revenue., so they can afford him. And the buyout isn't going to happen anyway. He will retire in a few years and his son will be the next Iowa head coach.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 02:58 PM) I think you guys are overreacting a bit. Dude's getting paid 4-5 million a year, around top 15-20 in the country. The top guys make 7. He's maintained the "go to a bowl practically ever year and highly rated bowls ever 3-4 years" like Frye. For a school like Iowa, that's pretty standard and worth the price of admission IMO, especially coming off a 12-2 Rose Bowl year. Buyout seems odd, but ultimately if he keeps going to bowl games that's all pennies in the jar. He had similar language in his previous contract. If they were to buy him out 4 or 5 years ago, it would have cost a mint. Recruits know who is going to be coaching Iowa. I don't know why that's a bad thing. Besides, it isn't like coaching salaries are going to be dropping any time soon.

QUOTE (Hatchetman @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 02:24 PM) They would have but he was a 5/10 guy with kids in local high schools. he wasn't going anywhere. The Larry Himes rebuild worked pretty well. Though that was pretty much the only thing he could do with collusion going on and not being able to sign any FA's. Also kept Ozzie Guillen. In 3 years, you are going to flip the roster anyways. Avi is the longest tenured position player on the Sox now without a rebuild and he was acquired 3 years ago.

QUOTE (JUSTgottaBELIEVE @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 02:19 PM) you state everything so matter-of-factly. I have said that I believe that team can compete, obviously nothing is guaranteed. not sure how you know for a fact that team couldn't compete. I'm sure you took the Rangers and Indians to have the two best records in the AL this year too. since you know exactly how everything will play out, who is going to win the world series this year? You can't win with him. He thinks the only exciting season since Reinsdorf owned the team is when they won the WS. Any other season, including playoff appearances....a boring failure. He did move the bar and say consecutive playoff appearances are exciting. So get this, in his world winning 102 games, and losing the WS in 7 games, boring, but the next year, if you did that and then snuck into the WC with an 86 win season and get trounced in one game, far more exciting because it's consecutive. He's probably the only guy who when Javy Vazquez got lit up in the 2008 playoffs, blamed Reinsdorf.

The last time the White Sox did what would be considered a full rebuild, they kept one of their best players, if not their best, in Carlton Fisk. Was that a re-tool?

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 01:49 PM) Rebuilding means trading from your core, so guys like Sale, Quintana, Abreu, Eaton, Rodon, Anderson, & Jones. Trading a bunch of guys a year from free agency and coming off poor seasons is definitely not rebuilding. Instead of arguing semantics, explain how such a strategy (deal the complimentary pieces) gets us closer to the playoffs or helps us achieve sustainable success. Frees up cash. Brings young players into the organization. Same types of things trading Sale does. Maybe the prospects aren't as sexy, maybe they have even a greater chance and not being anything, but if it's taking a step back to hopefully take a few steps forward, it's rebuilding. There are many ways to bring young players into an organization.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 12:18 PM) I'll never understand extending a coach when they have multiple years left. Even if you don't expect to make a change, it's an unnecessary risk for debateable gain. College coaches with less than 5 years on their contracts recruiting HS kids who more than likely will redshirt and be in a program for 5 years, can definitely be a problem, especially when there has been heat on the coach previously.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 01:36 PM) But that's not a rebuild, that's just more retooling. And how does it help us maximize the three year window we have with Chris under control? You're punting at least the 2017 season by trading guys like Frazier, Melky, & Robertson and now have three big holes to fill before the 2018 season. If all goes well, which is unlikely for reasons listed numerous times, you have two seasons to compete before you lose Chris Sale for nothing. Does that really sound like a good plan to you? Again, this retooling nonsense has to end. Like Hahn said in the STH event, we aren't going to get better until we take a step back. More retooling is just delaying the inevitable. There are obvious risks when it comes to rebuilding, but they are far less than more half-ass retooling. Our track record over the past 10 seasons speaks for itself. No it's not. Trading veterans for minor leaguers is rebuilding. Why would it only be considered rebuilding if they traded Sale and/or Q? They aren't going to trade everyone away.

QUOTE (Hatchetman @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 01:21 PM) whatever. he's not bringing much back one way or another. Yes. It's not like he is going to bring back a top prospect. Maybe a mediocre one. They still need guys to take the mound, and if he gets hot and a team has a need, maybe they will be desperate enough next season to give up a decent prospect. Or maybe you throw him in with another veteran to up an ante.

QUOTE (Hatchetman @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 01:22 PM) Robertson no value with his price tag. I disagree. We will find out most likely.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 01:10 PM) And what's that going to accomplish? Trading a bunch of guys coming off average to below average seasons with only a year left of control? How does that make us better exactly? That's just a half-ass rebuild and we'll end up losing Sale in three year with no chance of being competitive. You're so anti rebuild that you're not even making sense any more. Getting something is better than nothing. I imagine Melky and Frazier and Robertson have some value around the league. Once they trade Sale and or Q for prospects that don't turn into MVP candidates, everyone who is so gung ho to get rid of every player, will change their tune. They can always trade Sale or Q in a year or 2. No sense in trading him just to get rid of him. If trading an ace for prospects is a guarantee to make teams better, I have no idea why teams pay them so much money.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 12:15 PM) FWIW, which ain't much, I see us as a "rebuild" more in vein of Tigers last year or Yankees this year. I really think one or two choice trades of near MLB talent get us there. The problem is being patient when we are still 1-2 years away and letting it happen, not just going hog wild as soon as you smell it coming together. He mentioned Melky, Robertson, Frazier, and Lawrie's contracts expiring soon. I would imagine they may be the first lined up out the door. Although if they do trade Frazier, I would hang on to Lawrie. He isn't going to bring much back, and has had nice stretches this year. You could put him at 3B, and hope he plays well enough to flip at the deadline if they aren't winning. It would really be radical to trade Sale and Q. I would imagine that is not the plan unless they get an offer they can't turn down.

QUOTE (TheTruth05 @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 11:08 AM) I assume they're all aware how the North side has become the only team in Chicago over the past 1.5 years that even most of the older STH want to start this thing ASAP. No one really mentioned the Cubs. There was just the griping about veterans being brought in and not getting the job done. Some people were upset, but those that asked questions were civil. Even the guy crying about not being able to sell his $5 tickets.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 09:59 AM) Considering the audience is the season ticket holders the team is trying to convince to stick around, this could be an instance of trying to prepare them for the worst. Actually, I don't want a rebuild, and I was definitely in the minority at this thing.

QUOTE (JUSTgottaBELIEVE @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 09:21 AM) Dick said the plan is to start the rebuild this offseason He was saying he didn't want to show his hand but he was showing his hand, and did mention if they didn't do it this year, they would have to next, unless there was a big influx of cash. He also emphasized the past "pivot points", how the Sox tried to extend trying to win instead of taking a step back, and it wound up blowing up in their faces. I don't think anyone there thinks he isn't going to start a rebuild this coming offseason. How big it is would be anyone's guess.

QUOTE (Hatchetman @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 08:38 AM) Interesting. Cubs and Red Sox far and away the best. Wonder what they have in common. What's weird is the Cubs usually only feature 1 or 2 guys they actually drafted.

Gonzalez is one of those guys everyone wants around after a good game, and everyone wonders what he is doing in the rotation when he gets bombed. Obviously, you don't just let him go, but if they are rebuilding, it's not like they are going to send everyone away. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the people they are trading are the guys that aren't going to be around. Melky, Frazier, Robertson. From what he said, they are definitely taking a step back, but that may not include trading guys like Sale or Q. A couple of other things. He was very aware the team was going to be OBP challenged coming into this year. He did say it is currently on the low end of what they were hoping to get. And that is a point of emphasis now. He said 5 of the top 6 OBP guys in the minors were recent draft picks. Some guy complained about not signing Asian players. Said they were all over the place. Hahn asked who he wanted the Sox to sign. Of course the guy couldn't think of anyone. Said the posting system and success some guys have had have made signing them very expensive. Someone mentioned to him many of his failed signings, he did say all those guys sucked. He really was quite good. Brooks was next and he was pretty funny. I am one who has always liked Brooks and think he has maybe the most thankless job in the world. He talked a bit about Guaranteed Rate, and emphasized it is a more lucrative deal overall than is in the press, and there are going to be some cool things coming from this partnership. Then some guy who has a weekend package with $5 tickets started complaining he couldn't sell his upper deck corner seats on Stubhub and they have to do more for a guy like him. like make sure he gets all the giveaways. He is thinking about pulling the plug on his $135 commitment. For his $135 commitment they give him a season ticketholder gift at the end of the year. Sometimes its' sweet, sometimes blah. You get a season ticketholder party at the park. A party at the ChiSox Bar and Grill at the beginning of the season, and they give you a free game with a patio party, and this guy is complaining he can't sell his $5 ticket for $6 on Stubhub, and the Sox need to compensate him for that. That was my que to leave.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Sep 6, 2016 -> 04:56 PM) So that was a long way to say he's good enough and you don't expect better. Iowa at one point contended for national titles and that hope apparently is long gone. Imo Iowa city and the university have a lot to sell and recruiting isn't as good as it could be and the team isn't winning as much as it could be either. If you look at "similar" schools and their success vs the talent in state, Wisconsin is a great comparison and places like Oregon aren't far off. Iowa has a ton to sell and its location is not nearly as bad as you make it out to be. When did they compete for national titles?

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Sep 6, 2016 -> 07:05 PM) Pretty bogus reason by Hahn when its less than last year. Wonder what their real reason is. The reL reason is they are rebuilding next year and don't need him to pitch 160 innings. I

QUOTE (JUSTgottaBELIEVE @ Sep 6, 2016 -> 07:05 PM) I was hoping they'd give it one more crack before starting the rebuild but I guess everyone here gets what they want now. Should see a surge in attendance the next few years since this is what everyone wants to see. Yippee another 5 years of sub .500 baseball I agree

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Sep 6, 2016 -> 06:56 PM) They came out and said they are or is it just your own opinion based on whatever it is they said? He said it without saying it. I am 100% certain. Mentioned pivot poins. Said there was one in 2007 and after 2012 and they got those wrong. Said if they did not rebuild after this year, with their contract situations, would have to after next. It I S going to happen. Brooks was there as well as said the g rate deal is worth a lot more than media reports. The public only sees a portion of th agreement. Said there is going to be an event next year with a bunch of bands g rate is subsidizing ticket prices

I was just at a season ticket holder q& a with RH. They are going to be rebuilding boys Could be a reason Fulmer and Burdick are taking the rest of the season off.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 6, 2016 -> 03:09 PM) Let's point out though - "picking some clunkers high in the draft" does not destroy a franchise these days. The example continues being the Astros. 3 #1 picks, completely blew 2 of them, still a legit playoff contender with a lineup that should only get better next year. That took 5 years, and they started from a point of having much less to trade away than the White Sox currently have. Then why play for the high picks? Once Houston makes it's first selection, the rest of the draft, the Sox would have had the better picks correct? I would much rather pick 18th than first in the second round.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Sep 6, 2016 -> 02:38 PM) As I've said before, I have no clue if they're going to do a rebuild right, no idea if they'll bring in the right prospects to do this correctly. I do however know that they can't put together a roster around Sale and Quintana to make the playoffs. 5 years is a lot of freaking time to have gotten that right, they haven't done that and I'll absolutely be pissed off if they go about it in the same way for year 6 because hey, maybe they'll get lucky. The problem with a rebuild is you can actually do it "right", but still not be successful. It works out for some teams, and those teams get incredibly lucky. There was nothing in Theo's plan that said sign a cheap free agent starter. Trade him for a future Cy Young winner. It was an astute pick up, but it was incredibly lucky. He got Bryant when the Astros took Appel. He got Rizzo for Cashner, got his buddy canned, then hired him. Those were genius moves for him, but lucky. If they don't have those 3, they are still rebuilding.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 6, 2016 -> 02:33 PM) Because you bring back 8+ of them, and you stop trading away the guys you currently have, and you receive higher draft slots. Force the numbers to have some shot at overwhelming the poor scouting. Even the supposed genius organizations pick some clunkers high in the draft. This sets up being really bad a really long time. I am happy they want at least some sort of immediate major league help for Sale or Quintana at this point. That probably shows their hand a bit as well. No total rebuild. Maybe trade a pitcher or 2 for some hitters. I do think their minor league staff and maybe a few scouts are going to change. I am sure Robin is gone. I would imagine most of the coaching staff will be gone as well.