caulfield12

Well, there is the not insignificant risk that he doesn't mix well in the clubhouse, but we're not giving up a boatload like we did with Swisher at the time... Everyone felt the price tag without the pick attached was closer to $7-10 million.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 01:27 PM) For once, this is right. This is a three million dollar signing for a guy who when healthy can be a #2 starter, on a team that can use a RH SP at the top of their rotation. If the guy gives you problems, or sucks, you dump him. There really is not much risk when you consider he is only getting $2.5 million over minimum wage in MLB. Where else can you get a shot at a #2 starter for $3 million? Jose Quintana.

Necessary move. Now we need the outfield version of Latos. Robin will have his hands full dealing with a quite combustible clubhouse mix.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 07:31 AM) what the f*** are you talking about? You said Sanders was a cross between Larry David and woody allen, I agree with the first one and disagree with the second one. I didnt say anything about boycotting everyone that has worked with Woody Allen, i said WOODY ALLEN IS A WHINY ACCUSED CHILD RAPIST. So if you were the best dancer at Juilliard and I compared you to Michael Jackson and Prabhu Deva, your first response would be to take offense? If someone compares Rubio to Clinton as a politician, he should say I don't take it as a compliment because "I'm not a philanderer and accused rapist like him."

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 10:24 AM) That's clearly changed over the last few years has drafting and development has improved significantly. Nevertheless, we only have one position player currently projected to be a big league regular at the moment.

So every actor and actress that has worked with Woody Allen should be boycotted in your opinion? Where does political correctness begin and end? If the comparison was Bill Clinton, am I implicitly calling, let's say Marco Rubio, a rapist and womanizer if they have some of the same political traits and I had compared Rubio to Obama and Clinton?

http://news.yahoo.com/former-nyc-mayor-blo...-211730112.html

And that's also assuming Frazier's second half was an anomaly and he hits the ground running in the AL. It's going to take further improvement from Rodon and a 3.5-3.75ish ERA from Johnson for us to go anywhere with all the offensive and defensive question marks. Cuurently, we have a run dating back to 2007 of not coming out of April more than 1 game over .500 and typically 3-4 games under...which would be yet another wet blanket and turn the focus back to Ventura when realistically this isn't a playoff team as presently constituted. I actually feel sorry for Ventura because he is the last target left before the blame starts migrating higher. I can't imagine having a thread about the Sox moving had we just signed Justin Upton.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 8, 2016 -> 08:28 PM) How and why would be answered if you looked at their 2004 seasons, and for El Duque, he wasn't so good for the White Sox except for 1 inning. But they were all prime bounceback candidates entering 2005. Other than Cabrera, LaRoche, the catchers and sort of Duke...we don't have as many guys with solid track records. The other main difference is how many of those guys in 2005 were close to their primes and rebounding...with the exception of El Duque.

I don't think anyone's supporting Sanders because of his eloquence (he's like a cross between Larry David and Woody Allen but taller), his style or appearance, it's almost 100% what he represents or symbolizes or a protest against the establishment. Now on those occasions like Nixon and JFK in 1960, it might have been a small factor, but less so than the Kennedy machine greasing Chicago. And, in another way, it's going to be turned against Rubio now...that he's just another more packaged, less intellectual version of Obama without the ability to do well in retail politics outside of his own bubble of advisors. The further irony here is he was taken down a peg or two by a candidate some have argued was unelectable due to his weight issues in Christie.

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 8, 2016 -> 03:24 PM) Most of those guys weren't nearly as bad in 2004 as the 7 listed in the article were in 2015. Only Cotts had a negative WAR in 2004 I believe. How or why would Dye and AJ not be on that list? El Duque? For the White Sox, the only players with a bounceback to hope for are Cabrera and LaRoche, in terms of their prior careers. Including Jacob Turner's really pushing the definition. He's had one career year with a war of around 2.

But the Cubs essentially decided Fowler wasn't quite good enough to play center for them, supposedly. Plus they've been hyping Almora a lot recently, maybe for leverage. Based on Eaton defensively last year, the White Sox can only be 75% happy with that position. And the Rangers do make sense because DeShields surprised everyone out of nowhere but they're not sure he can repeat. There's also talk of moving Profar to CF if he can't handle the infield this spring. Justin Ruggiano is the backup and he's not an everyday CFer, either. But is Fowler?

Depends on how confident they are in Piscotty and Grichuk. Plus, losing two players to the Cubs, turnabout is fair play.

In one of those ESPN pieces, the two best markets were supposedly going back to Montreal (for Tampa) and the San Jose area (for the A's). Charlotte, San Antonio, Portland, Mexico City, OKC, Las Vegas....were some of the main options mentioned.

And also thought it was spelled Gourriel previously as well. One of them played in Japan recently, if i remember corrrectly. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yulieski_Gourriel Yeah, he's the one we all remember from the first WBC....played 2b, then 3b and some SS. http://www.draysbay.com/2016/2/8/10937180/...ki-gurriel-cuba Better story with video. Weird it says oldest brother is playing in Quebec at age 33. He's likely to be $70-100 million. Definitely more than Olivera. Will be in big leagues pretty much from Day 1.

Depends where I was living at the time partially, but would remain a fan as long as franchise name stayed attached...and partially depending on new ownership situation. Cardinals are my NL team, would never root for Cubs no matter what.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/20...ve-never-heard/ Breitbart hammers Rubio on his role with the Gang of 8... http://www.vox.com/2016/2/8/10938582/marco-rubio-debate Why can't Rubio perform like this more consistently?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 8, 2016 -> 09:23 AM) There will always be players to add and trades that can be made. It was written on this board the White Sox had zero chance this offseason to improve their offense without trade Quintana. It appears they have been able to do it. As long as you are willing to pick up money one way or another, you will be able to acquire desirable players. I think it would be more accurate to say the best way to put a playoff contender on the field would be to trade Quintana for a Shelby Miller-like return and go all-in for 2017...or deal him for someone like Puig and patch the rotation with Latos/Fister/Lincecum, etc. To say there was zero chance to improve...well just replacing Flowers, 2b, DH and Garcia with 1 war players would have been a pretty substantial improvement. And the question isn't so much about improvement as good enough to earn a playoff spot at this point.

Let's say they are at their budget limit, just for argument's sake. How would they expect to get even better bargains or have more resources this time next year? It seems the only way is for this year's team to actually make the playoffs. If they don't, they're back in the same situation with even less negotiating leverage with more teams holding more dollars/revenue chasing fewer assets. I can just see it...now that Danks and LaRoche are off the books, there won't be many good fits left for the White Sox to bid on. And, from the rumors flying around, the Jays are already trying to extend Bautista and Encarnacion, leaving Colby Rasmus and Carlos Gomez as two of the top five hitters on next year's market, along with Cespedes, who I'm sure everyone will agree we likely won't be able to afford.

If they offered Gordon four years and $75 million, that would be yet another indication. Or Cespedes, three years and roughly the same amount. 400+ pages wouldn't be in the Cespedes thread if many didn't believe he was a realistic target. Otherwise, we'd have to believe it was all media spin doctoring and more or less a game to build fan interest in the offseason. Is that logical? That everything out there was completely disingenuous and a smokescreen to drive up prices for the Tigers and Royals?

double post/delete

QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 8, 2016 -> 01:23 AM) Caulfield, I respect your political posts. It's obvious you know your s***. Tell me what's going to happen in terms of both parties and then the general election. Greg, I honestly have no idea. The betting money's still on Rubio, but if he finishes third or fourth in NH, he almost has to take second in SC. As for the Dems, Hillary still has a 70-80% chance at the nomination, but it will drag on nearly as long as 2008 and she will be even more battered and bruised than that primary season. If I was a Republican, I'd hope to keep Rubio/Kasich or Haley as my most viable general election ticket. If Rubio continues to flounder under scrutiny, a Kasich/Christie ticket would be extremely tough to beat as well. A lot of Dems might be more accepting of Kasich than Clinton by November. If Hillary wanted to unite the party, she would run with Liz Warren, but that's almost impossible to imagine thse two cooperating. As far as the general election, the Democrats are a 2-3% favorite but a lot can and will change in the next nine months.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/san...ef=rss_politics Not a great look for the Sanders campaign on corporate/financial sector fundraising...

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/women-who-su...-234239662.html And here comes the backlash from the Albright and Steinem comments. The funny thing to me is Bill Clinton pissed off everyone in South Carolina eight years ago...yet African-Americans are overwhelmingly supporting Clinton when the majority of Sanders' goals are seemingly more directly lined with their self interests in comparison to Hillary's "bite-sized" plans that poll well. The major difference is that he continues to frame his populism in economic/social class frame of reference rather than in racism/sexism/discrimination terms. Another interesting development is how quick the Clinton camp was to claim a technical win when Sanders clearly had the most supporters in terms of sheer numbers at the caucuses...and this in the face of her blowing a 56-5 lead in support a year ago. Also not helping is Elizabeth Warren not endorsing but pretty much now a surrogate for Sanders. Wonder if Caroline Kennedy and Oprah go for Sanders this time like they did for Obama eight years ago?