Dick Allen

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Feb 5, 2016 -> 10:18 PM) Out of bullets again, eh? Well that didn't take long. Dick Allen? Not out of bullets. You are just being irrational. Are you pissed off at JR for not picking up the tab for the World Series parade? It amazes me how you blame JR for everything.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Feb 5, 2016 -> 09:47 PM) I don't think anyone is questioning Reinsdorf's "competence" as a business leader. His hardcore tactics we've discussed in his threats and blackmail to move the team away from Chicago if the state didn't put in place an agreement that guaranteed he and his investors extraordinary wealth is evidence of that. He is still a bad guy. A very bad guy, as it relates to being the owner of this team we love. The fact he had the audacity to approach the Illinois legislature and pull them away from the important jobs we elect them to do to work on putting together a deal whose only goal was to make he and his owners rich beyond their wildest dreams was purely disgraceful. Don't you think all of the revenue raised through this deal to make Jerry Reinsdorf a very rich man could have been better spent elsewhere for the greater good of the state? No, make all of the excuses you want for this guy, but he has been bad for the White Sox brand since the day he arrived on our doorstep in 1981. Very much looking forward to the next ownership group. LMAO. LMAO.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Feb 5, 2016 -> 08:40 PM) LMAO! Why would your apparent hero Jerry Reinsdorf be the "bad guy" in this situation? Ooooohhhhhh, I dunno. The threats to move to Tampa if all of his greedy demands weren't met is the first thing that leaps to mind. I don't suppose you could consider Uncle Jer & his shameful co-owners AND the elected officials to all be the bad guys in what went down when this deal was made. Seems pretty obvious that all the major players failed either Sox fans, taxpayers, or both, don't you think? Then you let him leave. He even said the Governor told him to get a new city so he could use it as leverage. The White Sox, like every other company, try to get what they can from the state and the city. They have an entity that creates revenue for the city and state.The question would be has the state made their money back with this deal. What has the tax on sales at the ballpark, team employees, even visiting players added up to over the years? How many are employed paying taxes instead of unemployed collecting welfare? The state is probably still in the red I would guess. I am totally against publicly funded stadiums, but if a team can get one, they aren't the bad guy. do you resent Boeing for the sweetheart deal they received to move their headquarters , even though not many jobs to Chicago? Do you resent the Bears who basically doubled their franchise value with a Soldier Field rehab that is using the same tax the White Sox stadium uses? If you held getting a deal from the state or city against companies, you would have a lot of conflict every time you went out to eat, or buy some clothes, or put gas in your tank. Reinsdorf did what any competent business leader would do. He got his sweetheart deal both with the stadium and the lease, and then he even got the lease renewed.

But why would Jerry Reinsdorf be the bad guy? Wouldn't the elected officials that are supposed to have your best interests in mind be the one's at fault? It isn't a good deal for the taxpayers. The argument is it is a hotel tax so out of towers are really picking up the tab, but still it is money that could be used elsewhere. they were able to make renovations at no cost to the taxpayers other than those pissed off about a name change.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Feb 5, 2016 -> 02:45 PM) Schwarber also has a .143 BA in those 61 plate appearances. I'm not saying Schwarber will never face another LHP again but Maddon does well at extracting the most from his players when he fills out the lineup card everyday. Not trying to come off as a cubs Homer but Maddon is a good manager and knows his players. Just giving credit where its due, even if it pains me to say it. I am not referring to you here because you aren't the only one that feels that way about Maddon. But look at these numbers. Schwarber and LaRoche each can't hit LHP. Maddon knows his players and only had Schwarber face lefties 61 times in 69 games played. LaRoche played 127 games and faced LHP 94 times, even less percentage-wise than Schwarber, but Robin was an idiot.

If the Cubs are already prepared to make Soler a platoon and give him 120-140 plate appearances a season since MLB pitching is 80% right handed, then what in the world were they thinking when they thought they could get a frontline pitcher for him?

QUOTE (knightni @ Feb 5, 2016 -> 12:21 PM) I went when I was about 10, but the last 7 years afterwards, it was getting downright gross and dangerous-appearing to many people. I was given a coffee table book that was about Comiskey Park in 1977. The park looked a lot nicer in 1990 than in 1977. It was unreal how rundown it was back then.

And for the Cubs, it's not just about payroll this year. Their roster is going to get really expensive really quickly if everything goes as planned.

QUOTE (shipps @ Feb 5, 2016 -> 10:44 AM) Same reasons why he makes more sense to the Sox too. I like Austin Jackson. The problem is his agent. I would venture to guess to get him to sign right now you would have to give him a contract a lot more lucrative than any of us would imagine.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Feb 5, 2016 -> 10:35 AM) Good call on Hamel. He makes 9M this year with a '17 option for 10M with a 2M buyout. So if the cubs could save an additional 8M next year if they buyout Hamel. I doubt they buy him out though, 10M is pretty cheap for what he gives the cubs. Theo needs the DH. No way they bring back Fowler without a trade. They have Soler, and now Baez playing the OF with Schwarber and Heyward. They don't have a spot for Fowler. Even Cubby boy Kaplan knows the Cubs are out. Tried to use the Rangers as the Sox competition, but they aren't adding payroll either apparently. Hahn isn't going to bid against himself. Fowler needs someone to get injured or he is probably going to have to settle for something a lot lower than he was figuring.

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 5, 2016 -> 10:01 AM) Another possibility could be that Fowler is waiting to see if Angels are able to unload Wilson's contract. I think the reality is the offers are not really in the amount he is looking for. If he's waiting for the Angels to unload CJ Wilson's contract, he might as well announce his retirement.

You also have the building blocking north winds, which is nice. I've been to Wrigley which faces the same way Comiskey Park faced at the end of May with a wind off the lake, and froze. I think it actually used to be in the rule book the field must face northeast. I wonder with the design of the stadium, how the shadows would have worked. That is probably a bigger issue than the sunset. If it gets shadowy at home plate in the 5th or 6th inning, you have a problem.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 03:00 PM) You are just flat out insulting and rude. I simply shared an experience I had listening to Jerry Reinsdorf talk about the construction of the ballpark and then a couple of follow-up questions I had with him, and then you come along and troll with this typical blithering nonsense of yours. If your intention is to add ZERO to the quality of the discourse around here, you are routinely quite successful in the endeavor. LMAO.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 02:52 PM) Again, its not about the one player you get at 1.1 its the huge bonus pool you get to sign multiple high caliber players throughout the draft. Yes, but technically you are giving most of that extra money to that one player, unless you want to Astro it and wind up with Appel and Aiken. I don't think tanking is as big of an issue in baseball as it is in Philadelphia in the NBA, and it's pretty clear a draft lottery wouldn't stop it. The big issue is the players union will never go for a salary floor, because they know the next step would be a salary cap.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 02:48 PM) I would be surprised if it went away altogether, it is supposed to keep some semblance of competitive balance by trying to get the small revenue teams some compensation when they lose their top players to the deep pocketed high revenue teams. It will definitely be altered in some manner, a QO might start out at $25M in the next deal making sure that it is extended to only the top echelon of players instead of the mid-level players that are receiving QO's the last couple of years. I think they will find a way to revise the system to make it more equitable, but I can't see MLB walking away from the idea of compensation altogether when the other leagues have compensation systems in place unless the players give up something big in return. If they want them, pay for them. If they don't trade them away. Either that or protect every first round non playoff team pick. Let every team have a second rounder. They still get some comp, but they won't be offering nearly as many QOs. But if a guy is a FREE agent, he should be a FREE agent and not hung up on a draft pick. Many of us are hung up on the White Sox giving up a draft pick, and the pick they would lose is lower than most teams. Tampa would have to give up pick 13 to sign Desmond. It is kind of bad when the better teams have to give up a pick less valuable than the guys in the middle, so if they insist on comp, I say first rounders only sacrificed by playoff teams.

QUOTE (supernuke @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 01:54 PM) I still remember skipping school to watch the first game in New Comiskey on TV. Unfortunately I was watching with my buddy who was a big Tigers fan. It was not an easy game to watch. I was at the very first game. I was walking around with my cousin who is now a cop and we were opening doors and walking everywhere. We wound up in the bowels and walked right by Dan Quayle. The one thing I remember the most were our seats. We were in about section 512 row 7. We had a 27 game package. We figured they wouldn't be so bad. I couldn't believe how high up we were. All the birds were flying below us. Never went back to those seats again. The upper deck is no worse than the upper deck at any of these newer parks, the problem was we were used to a lower upper deck.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 01:45 PM) I met Mr. Reinsdorf once back in the late 90s, in one of the many playoff-less Octobers we've experienced during his time as owner. It was a seasons ticket holder gathering in the Bullpen Sports Bar. He was talking about the construct of the then-new Comiskey Park, and he told the crowd gathered that his only regret in the construction of the park was building the opening of the upper deck at the base of the deck, vs. somewhere in the middle. I don't think anyone could argue with that, of course, as that was clearly a serious architectural flaw given the steepness and height of the original upper deck. When I had the chance to talk to him, I asked him if he felt that way, why not just close the openings of the base and build out openings in the middle. He said "no, that would cost millions of dollars to do", and so I was, like, ok. I also asked him why he didn't build the park in the direction of the skyline. That park in it's location is just off the city enough that the view of the skyline is just perfect. I think we've all seen it at one time or another walking down the ramp that faces the skyline when leaving the park. I've often maintained that the original upper deck might not have been maligned to the degree it was back in the '90s because the view of the city would have been fantastic from almost every seat up there. Reinsdorf's reason for not building the park in that direction had something to do with the direction of the sun on the field preventing them from doing so. And to this day that explanation has never made any sense, because building the park in that direction would have essentially been in the same direction Comiskey Park had faced for 80 years, and that seemed to work out fine. I'll always look at that decision as such a missed opportunity for this organization. How many people sit in the upper deck? You aren't saying there would be thousands upon thousands more up there so they could look at the buildings are you? And it would be a spectacular cost to move the openings of the upper deck higher about 20 feet. To make it make any sense, you would also have to move the entire concourse. White Sox baseball would be so much more enjoyable if you owned the team. Please do us all a favor and buy them and show everyone how a real team is run.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 01:00 PM) Shams Charania ‏@ShamsCharania 57m57 minutes ago Chicago's Nikola Mirotic has been discharged from hospital after two procedures, with post-ASB target return, sources tell The Vertical. Targeting a post ASB return. ...The Vertical has great sources. That is some insight.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 12:57 PM) All those tall buildings right across the Dan Ryan weren't pretty enough for you? They used to be pretty nice near the Fourth of July. Fireworks going off in units was a sight to see. Followed by fire engine sirens.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 12:04 PM) To this day, I don't understand why they didn't build the Cell with the Chicago skyline in the background. Unless you are way up in the Upper Deck, which people have moaned about, you wouldn't see much of the skyline if the park was turned around. I do think they have it facing the way it's facing is because of the parking lots. You would be loading a ton of people into LF.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 10:13 AM) Ben Badler of Baseball America - who is probably the most expert guy out there in the US on LatAm baseball - was discussing this recently. Believe it or not, the records in Cuba are considered much harder to fudge and more likely to be accurate than the ones from the DR. That was in reference to current times, and apparently a decade or two ago it was much worse in Cuba. Yes, there were people who swore Contreras and El Duque were 10 years older than their listed ages.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 09:46 AM) He doesn't really have any reason to lie signing as a 16-year old. Unless he is saying he's older to be able to sign quicker. He is probably more valuable as a 16 year old than as someone a year or 2 older. Many years ago when I played American Legion, scouts would give some of us index cards to fill out some of our information. I was younger than most of the guys on the team, and it was always "suggested" that you make yourself a year or 2 younger on the card. I would think if you got drafted, that would eventually be detected. But with the international guys, you never know. So there is probably some motivation to make himself a little younger, although he is probably legitimately 16.

The White Sox prefer a left handed OF. They were in on Gordon. Wanted Cespedes but he has reverse splits. The Rogers report that they prefer a LH hitter and Fowler is better as a RH hitter is sort of true, but he is basically the same as Adam Eaton from the left side vs. RH pitchers. Eaton .355 OBP .782 OPS, Fowler .351 OBP .761 OPS. Sign him up and end this now.

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 06:39 PM) in the Puig article, Merkin has stated that the sox 'appear unwilling' to give up a pick for Fowler Merkin is not making much sense. If they aren't willing to give up a pick for Fowler, then why would they even talk to him? And if they are unwilling to give up a pick for Fowler, why would they have any interest is paying the price for Puig? I really wanted Puig, but that thing with his sister, even though he supposedly was cleared, made me think he is a time bomb not worth the trouble.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 08:44 AM) On HawkeyeReport.com publisher Tom Kakert’s message boards, cynical anger about the Hawkeyes’ recruiting has been replaced by, well, nothing much at all. According to Rivals’ rankings, Iowa’s 2015 class averaged 2.71 stars per player. The 2016 class is just slightly better, at 2.83. Yet there seems to be a renewed confidence in the coaching staff after Iowa’s 12-0 regular season and first Rose Bowl appearance in 25 years. That wasn’t the case in the summer, when Iowa nabbed most of its expected class of 25 recruits in a commitment binge. “The criticisms of this class in July and August are no longer being made in January and February,” Kakert said. “That’s in large part because of 12-0.” Overall, recruiting websites are ranking Iowa's class around 40th nationally and seventh or eighth in the Big Ten Conference. That's an upgrade from the Class of 2015. But as we've learned over the last 17 years, Iowa under Kirk Ferentz doesn't take its recruiting lead from star ratings. http://www.hawkcentral.com/story/sports/co...imore/79703972/ Fwiw, the last time Iowa had a bunch of 4 and some 5 star guys from Chicagoland, it turned out to be a complete disaster. The only one who turned out halfway decent was TE Anthony Moeaki. Most of the guys in this class were already committed before Iowa got off to that 12-0 start. If they can continue to build on it again this year, they'll definitely be in some a few more 4 and 5 star type players, but it has never been Ferentz's style. They already have at least one for next year. Maybe the most highly ranked football recruit in school history.