35thstreetswarm

How does a speculation offered by a reporter with no connection to the White Sox -- which you think is inaccurate -- make Reinsdorf "look like a joke?"

I’ll add to the “would you be happy with...” posts. Would you be happy with an off-season consisting of: Gerrit Cole ...and that’s it? Assume re-signing Abreu too. Wait for in-house options to arrive to fill RF and DH holes or reassess next offseason? I think I would.

Cole even looks like an LAAngel. Can't you just see that 2010s-era pseudomullet flowing from the back of that red cap?

Least-watched World Series ever, apparently. (My Cub fan friends always tell me it's 2005...) Strange, I find it more compelling than just about any World Series in the past 5-10 years.

You mean like repeatedly substituting your own baseless “interpretation” of an event for the accounts of multiple eyewitnesses to it (not to mention the conclusions of the team’s investigators with access to far more evidence than you?) Bonus: do you see the irony in simultaneously denigrating these eyewitnesses for supposedly speaking behind beyond their “expertise” — in discussing an event they witnessed — in this situation?

You should probably save your canned anti-journalism screed for a situation where it actually fits the article written. The author is not trying to explain a "complex situation," (which you curiously admit yourself in the same breath you're accusing her of doing so). It's actually pretty simple. She's taking issue with the Astros' ownership reflexively calling first-hand witnesses to a situation liars before investigating the facts and figuring out that they were, in fact, telling the truth. That this was their first impulse, and that they only reversed themselves after public pressure to do so, makes one question their organizational culture and ability to deal with like situations in circumstances with less public scrutiny. Not a difficult leap.

Negativity, when delivered with a sufficient sneer, signals savvy and worldliness in the speaker and is an acceptable substitute for original thought. Ask any eye-rollling teenager.

I think they’ll target Puig for those very reasons...but then he might surprise us by coming her and being great.

Am I the only one that remembers that the White Sox were top 13 in payroll (and even top 5) in relatively recent memory? I don't know what the Sox are planning for this offseason but I also don't understand the widespread notion that it's absurd to expect them to ever have a top tier payroll.

Psychological defense mechanisms are powerful things.

I would be head-over-heels if we got Strasburg. To me he's in Tier 1 with Cole - not Tier 2 with Bumgarner as he's most often discussed on this board. 6/180 - let's do this.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't. https://www.mlb.com/cardinals/news/cardinals-fall-short-in-pursuit-of-luis-robert-c231451474 It wouldn't make sense. At any rate, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that every free agent who entertains bids for his services this offseason is going to take the highest bid. I'm going to continue to hope the White Sox offer the highest bids for Gerrit Cole, Yasmani Grandal, Marcel Ozuna and J.D. Martinez (though they pretty clearly won't, at least on all 4).

I mean historically. The answer is there are none, because despite persistent myths to the contrary major free agents make the economically rational decision and prioritize real money over factors like which stadium is less "boring." The White Sox have lost out on free agents - Machado, Harper, Tanaka, etc. - because they have offered less money than the teams that won the bidding war. Machado is a good example. The White Sox were in the lead with 250 million until they were outbid by a (perennial-losing, middle-market) team that offered 300. He liked 300 million in guaranteed money more than 250 in guaranteed money because he and his agent are human people.

What free agents turned down extra compensation offered by the Chicago White Sox in favor of “better ratings, “better attendance,” “more exciting neighborhood” or “more exciting stadium” offered by another team?

Yes - thanks. This is great stuff.

Were the Twins in the playoffs this season? I've forgotten already. I'm afraid I'll need proof.

You should consider just stopping. "Sit the next few plays out" as they say.

This might be the worst thread of the year.

Things some people hate: bat flips, jogging around the bases, having fun. Things everyone hates: losing playoff games for your team by doing dumb things. Acuna did #2.

This made my day. Thanks.

...you also have to take out the South for that rule to work. NFL doesn't rule Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, or Louisiana for that matter.

Cubs’ rebuild was clearly not a failure with a WS. But their era is over and was far less impressive than predicted. They were going for “Giants” and will turn out to be more “Royals”.

The latter is what I meant this thread to be about (on-field product) fwiw. I don’t think anyone thinks the Sox will ever be more “popular” for lots of reasons. I for one could care less.

But I'm not talking about attendance wars. I'm talking about who's a better team to watch. The Cubs outdrew the Sox in 2005, and I think most would agree who had the better year/team.

Details about losing bids get leaked all the time. Like, every time. See White Sox/Manny Machado/2019 and the twenty billion threads discussing our offer as Exhibit A. Your repeated mantra is also contrary to basic principles of economics, which suggest that it's probably safer to assume that a rational actor will *not* leave tens of millions of actual American dollars on the table, rather than in his pocket, based on absurd soft factors like "attendance" or "popularity in the city." But who knows? Maybe this will be the year we see a free agent tell his economically-self-interested agent, and his wife, and his kids who stand to inherit his compounded wealth one day: "we're going to voluntarily assess ourselves a $25 million penalty today because, I don't know, the Chicago White Sox just don't seem cool, man."