29andPoplar

The catcher the Cubs made available, Tony Richie, was originally drafted by the White Sox, 5th round? and wasn't signed.

One statement you make is key - needing Fields, Owens, and Richar to all play at a major league level in 2008 seems like too much. To augment your very insightful statement, think about how Williams uses the phrase "play at a championship level". If that's the level he expects and it appears he does, it's even more daunting a challenge. Personally I think they will sign Rowand, just a guess on my part. He is better than what they have and he can be moved to LF or RF if they ultimately get their dream CF down the line. And yes, the OF players you mention are all in play. There are several more in addition to those you name. I also agree that's a lot of movement and pieces will need to fall in place. The first piece (Hunter) didn't fall into place, which is precisely why I believe there will be more movement than he (KW) planned.

Hitless, Good thoughts and I see you have mentioned Owens the last two days. Of course neither of us know for sure. I firmly believe the White Sox are aiming higher than Owens. I know many here like Owens, he has potential, look what he did in his 2nd call up, etc. etc. And I respect those opinions, however mine differs. Leadoff hitter, I go to the Reds and say we'll give you some young pitching for Freel. That is my answer. Whichever of these soft tossing right handers the Sox have, dangle them for Freel. Many here will hate that idea but again, I am trying to think along with what the White Sox want to try to do, and that is win in 2008. Actually I put Freel at 2B and I keep Richar around to fill in or I go and get a better bench guy and keep Danny in the minors as insurance oh and by the way Danny, do your best to learn how to draw walks and get on base more so you can maybe be a leadoff hitter on a team that isn't shooting to win in 2008. People will say "Freel is nuts", "Freel drinks", well ok. Lots of players drink, Babe Ruth did, Mickey Mantle did, Dick Allen did, Willie Harris did, so very frankly my reply is so what and I know people will disagree, that's fine. Then I go find a thumper for LF, there are a few out there that can be had, guys coming off a down year. Guys are available. Then I decide on my 3B situation and either go with Crede or Fields. If you can move Crede and get a bullpen arm, great. Uribe you trade for whatever you can get, maybe a bullpen arm or a prospect or whatever. Then you find an all purpose bench guy who can play some IF and also RF. Maybe Mackowiak fits. After that you pick up a veteran arm as 5th starter and/or 5th starter insurance. I don't think Williams wants to do this but I could be wrong. I would bring in a Lieber type guy who can eat innings and be somewhat dependable in the 5th role. Any scrap heap type you bring in is a gamble but life is a gamble. Frankly I don't much care about 2011, the whole baseball world could be different by then and likely will be. If they say they want to win in 2008, then go with that mindset and further, act like it. Go get some players and fill your holes with guys that are available and are proven. Just my thoughts.

I agree. Here's the thing though, people will believe what they want to believe and every time something doesn't happen right with the White Sox they will think it's because they are cheap or stupid or both. It's a game of risks in terms of putting a team together. Sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't. This is true for any franchise. The Sox need to do better behind the scenes (developing and acquiring young talent) but I have no qualms how this one worked out.

This is true. Now it's time to move on, they need a CF, they need a LF, they need a leadoff hitter and oh by the way how about a little more help in the bullpen too. Lots to do. I suspect there will be some action and a lot of it in the next 10 days. Williams will not want to leave the winter meetings empty handed and I think he will get stuff done sooner. Who is the best CF out there w/out giving up talent? I would say Rowand. Is he better than what we have now, I would say yes. Is Aaron Rowand the answer to all our problems, definitely not. A few good moves over the next 10 days and people will be more optimistic. There are LF's available who can help. And I know what I'd do for a lead off hitter, but I don't run the club, I just add thoughts on a message board.

Really, who would the Red Sox want from the White Sox? They want things we don't have, like good young catching for one.

Not necessarily, no. They have an heir apparant at SS who may or may not be ready. LAA front office must think he is, unless they've got plans to bring in a veteran to replace O. Cabrera. The Angels, just like to White Sox, have lots of trade options. They can't and won't assume anything. I feel Miguel Cabrera will be moved next week but none of the suitors are banking on it. That'd be foolish. The Angels acquiring Garland just gives them more pitching, and more options. Certainly it looks like they have more possible trade avenues than the White Sox. The latest chatter is they may look to move Gary Matthews Jr. Who's going to take him on, with his salary and potential off the field issues? This to me was as simple as the White Sox getting part of their offseason plan done (upgrade at SS and get a very good #2 hitter at the same time), and the Angels adding to their pitching, either for depth or to open other avenues. Getting Garland shouldn't have anything to do with a possible Miguel Cabrera acquisition. LAA has the young sought after players regardless.

I see what you mean but it doen't always work that neatly. Cabrera may have just been made available by the Angels for any number of reasons. Or, maybe something came up on the Angels radar where it suddenly made sense to pursue a one year pitcher. Things change rapidly and a player who wasn't known to be available can suddenly be very tradeable. That's not to discount the possibility you raise of KW simply not being aware. It's possible, but doubtful.

Paging Juan Rivera. Very glad for Torii Hunter and the Angels. It's what Hunter wanted, a big market where he can get some good PR. I wonder what happened to Hunter's quote about nothing getting done until late next week? Hunter is a very good player and he would've helped the White Sox but I'm not complaining. All KW does now is go to plan B. One would have to think that's Rowand but it wouldn't surprise me if a trade is on deck for a younger guy. Williams turned the page the second he heard Hunter landed with LAA.

That pretty much says it. The Japanese guy Cleveland signed, what did he get, $3M per year guaranteed? Linebrink is basically $4.75M per year. Bullpen guys aren't cheap and I still wouldn't be surprised to see the Sox sign a reliever from Japan in addition to this. Very few teams are willing to trade decent bullpen guys these days.

soxfaninpa, I believe several more moves are in store. More bullpen, all purpose guy, two OF's, and a minor move or two.

Well it doesn't look like the White Sox are afraid to spend money to fix problems. I know there will be people on this site who will shoot this signing to pieces. This guy historically has taken the ball though. It's an improvement and very frankly the money is not much of a concern to me, they have it and will spend it.

What kind of draft choices do the White Sox give up guys?

I agree. All that matters to Rozner though is that it made Rozner's point. Dale Tallon is definitely not a "let's get all the Euros" guy. Rozner knows that too. Tallon recognizes the value of team toughness and an enforcers role, otherwise we wouldn't see David Koci on the roster nor probably Marty Lapointe at this point in his career or even an Adam Burish. Burish has no goals, no assists, but is a team-first, team tough kind of guy. Not to mention the guy they got, Alexeev, could have been under contractual control had he shown anything. He was a 1st round draft choice and a huge guy. It was a gamble, they hoped he would blossom being reunited with Rick Dudley. Stewart was a guy I liked but he was due to be a free agent after last season (as I recall) so basically the Blackhawks took a flyer on a guy with untapped skill. It didn't work but it was basically nothing ventured, nothing gained. Mentioning that transaction makes Rozner look like what he is ... a columnist who's generally very good and very astute, but who has a personal axe to grind and can't hide it. Barry Rozner and Billy Gardner are good friends, Rozner didn't like how Tallon moved back to the broadcast booth, thereby forcing Gardner out (due to Mike Smith playing checkers with front office personnel, not to mention Smith's maddening inability to get along with most human beings). Rozner felt Tallon was somewhat insensitive in not reaching out to Gardner or something. Gardner was whining to Rozner about losing his job (understandable I suppose) but the other part of the story is Mike Smith did not like all the things Billy Gardner was saying behind Smith's back ... some of which were warranted ... some of which Gardner should've kept his yap shut (which Gardner has historically had a hard time doing, going back to the early 80's). Mike Smith and Tallon got along ok at best and Smith wanted his own guy as right hand man (Nick Beverly from Toronto). Pulford ok'd it as long as Tallon had another job in the organization. Smith orchestrated Tallon's return to the booth and as a bonus it let him say bye bye to Gardner. I spoke to Mike Smith about this, he was very forthcoming and basically he said he didn't want Gardner around because of unprofessionalism/conduct detrimental to the organization. He told me and I quote "Billy knows the main reason why he was let go and that had nothing to do with Dale". Basically Smith didn't want organizational employees backstabbing him ... although Smith had a reputation for being more than a wee bit paranoid. And Rozner absolutely despised Mike Smith and ripped Smith every chance he got. Think Mariotti/Guillen or Mariotti/Hawk Harrelson. When Smith got let go, Bill Wirtz paid him big time hush money and you haven't heard a word from Mike Smith since ... except when Wirtz tried to recoup some of the money claiming Smith had made some "unauthorized trades" while he was GM ... LOL. Smith filed a grievance, had a lawsuit ready to go, Bettman ruled in Smith's favor, and Smith got his golden parachute. Therefore, Rozner has no affection for Dale Tallon although he used to be in Tallon's corner, trumpeting him for the GM job and pleading with the Hawks to launch Mike Smith. Rozner used to be in Bob Pulford's corner too, but whenever one of Barry's friends loses his job, Barry makes a new enemy and uses his column to take shots. Tallon historically hasn't put up with a whole lot of Rozner's crap and that made things worse. I am told when Rocky Wirtz personally visited the Daily Herald offices last month, some of this was discussed and it was agreed everything should be water under the bridge. Rocky wants to be friends with the media (good strategy). Rozner likely agreed to tune it down a notch, especially now that McDonough is in charge (they are friends too). But Rozner still managed to get in his backhanded shot at Tallon. No surprise to me.

They signed him for sure, to a minor league deal. He was taken once before in a Rule 5, Dec. 2005 by Seattle from the Braves. Then, he was signed as a minor league free agent by the White Sox last winter. Further I would find it strange the White Sox would sign this guy to a minor league deal only to expose him to the Rule 5. If he were exposed, surely he'd be selected based on his play in '07 and his winter league performance. I do know Regier likes him and I don't think the $50k claim fee means that much to the White Sox. Hmmm ... thinking about this for a few minutes, here's what I think the situation is: There is a distinct difference between declaring as a minor league free agent (6 years) vs. eligibility for the Rule 5 draft (4 years for the sake of simplicity). Bourgeois was drafted in 2000 so that he was a minor league free agent makes sense. I do not think all minor league free agents are part of the Rule 5 pool. For example, there was a guy the White Sox signed every year to play in Charlotte, Ernie Young. Ernie is in his late 30's and every year for the last few he signed with the White Sox. But I highly doubt Ernie was eligible for the Rule 5, the Players Association would raise a ruckus about that. Based on that, I doubt Bourgeois is eligible for the Rule 5. In my take, he was simply a minor league free agent who chose to sign with the White Sox. I will close by saying I don't know for sure, but it makes sense to me.

I like him, and his best position is 2B. He can also play 3B, and LF/CF. Not sure about RF. He has some baggage but I'm sure a number of teams would have interest.

No problem, actually I did not see it online, it was in the Tribune this morning.

Well seeing as you're a great one for bumping up old threads and saying "see, I told you so!" I thought I'd return the favor. And you completely missed the point. It has nothing to do with the consistency of your position, and everything to do with how off base your comments were, and are. Why don't you wait and see what they do for once, before spouting off about how bad it is to be a Sox fan. Your theories of what will happen to the franchise is only a prediction, and your predictions have been proven very wrong in the past. In fact, here's another one: "Boneheaded stubborness has wrecked the franchise. We really are going to send out everyone but Danks and Fields and start all over." Bzzzzt, wrong. Seriously ... sit back and wait to see what they do before pronouncing all is lost.

Very good article by Barry Rozner and I hope some of the changes he suggests might happen do indeed come to fruition. Isn't it quite clear who's on Barry's bad side though? Let's see ... Dale Tallon for one. He takes a shot at Tallon's passion for golf. Well, ok. Gee Barry, no potshots at Billy Gardner about his passion for golf? Oh, that's right ... Billy is your buddy and one of your sources. Tallon has called you out, more than once, for some of the slant you put on things when you print stuff. Hey Barry, just wondering ... how many Stanley Cups did those big bad Blackhawk teams win, you know, those teams you're so fond of and identify with "Blackhawk hockey"? None? I wonder if anyone remembers why they didn't win in 1985 (outskilled by Edmonton). Why didn't they win in 1991 (too much time in the penalty box vs. Minnesota). Why they didn't win in 1992 (outskilled by Pittsburgh, in large part by "Euro trash" Jaromir Jagr). The good old days weren't always so good, Barry. Some of us were there, and remember. If you want to talk about 1971 and 1973, we can do that too. The reason there's a buzz about the on ice product isn't because they have Stu Grimson Jr. It's because they have Pat Kane and Jonathan Toews. Regardless of that little rant, because I've talked to Rozner about what I perceive is his obvious bias on a few topics (needless to say those conversations didn't go very well, from his side at least), he makes some excellent points. Some of which are: - alienation of many alumni guys needs to end. It doesn't stop and start with Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita and Tony Esposito. It extends deeper and there is no question the Blackhawks front office dumped all over a few very good hockey men ... guys Rozner identifies, like Eddie Johnston, Bob Murdoch, Doug Wilson, Bob Murray, and more. - summer fan convention is a great idea. They should also get a NHL Draft here, pronto. - I've already mailed a letter to McDonough, suggesting he organize bus trips from certain high profile suburbs to home games, and to road games. Contract with a transportation firm and make it a party bus. Get the Blackhawk buzz going out in the suburbs and make it easy for people to attend a game. - work closely with some of the great establishments near the United Center. Partner with them and make it a win-win. There are some terrific places on W. Madison that no one would've dreamed of as recently as 10 years ago. As for the Foley thing, popular opinion wants him back so I would imagine chances are good. I will withhold my personal opinion but I hope Barry Rozner has as much concern for the current broadcasters if/when they get launched, just like he did with his buddy Billy Gardner. I wonder if Rozner ever tells the story of how the Blackhawk front office (Pulford) re-signed Gardner off the European league scrap heap to help Gardner get his age 55 NHL pension (lump sum $250K for playing in 400 NHL games). And when that didn't work out, how they helped him land on his feet in broadcasting. I don't see Rozner ever mention that stuff.

With the White Sox. As was discussed on this site yesterday, the Sox may have already had an agreement with him on a contract, and hence no pressing need to put him on the 40 man.

Key points here. I hope they suddenly start signing Boras clients but I'm not seeing it.

I wouldn't be too sure you're right about all this. You have no more clue than anyone else what could or couldn't have been done, nor a clue how the team will be constructed. After all, you are the guy who said, "What's sick is we are letting Buehrle go, while extending Vazquez ... SICK SAD SICK SAD. I have a 4 yr. old son I've tried to turn into a Sox fan. Now, I don't have a single argument for why he should root for the Sox. Frankly the Nationals are more worthy of fan support. Buehrle will be at 280+ wins at age 40. Again, the sick thing is almost 200 of those wins will be for another team." Maybe it's better to wait and see how it turns out. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCKKKKKKK !!

If anyone would have insight on Foley, it would be Rozner, who sometimes can't be trusted because of his friendships and vendettas. Rozner was right on about McDonough though, he floated the idea six weeks ago. Rozner is very tight with Billy Gardner and also knows Foley quite well but I do not know if the two are friends or if they are just fellow media guys. I do know McDonough is tight with Don Levin, owner of the Wolves, and he also has had contact with Foley the last few years.

If his problem were just with Mr. Wirtz then maybe he can return, or if it were just with Peter and Mr. Wirtz, it is possible. My understanding, though, was some sweeping statements about the Wirtz family were made by Foley so there may be some bad blood. I wonder if he was there at the funeral. His attendance or non attendance would speak volumes. Also for what it's worth, his relationship with Tallon is said to be strained. Not sure what say Tallon would have in any reconciliation but it's worth noting. One thing the fans are finding out though, if Rocky Wirtz thinks something is appropriate to get done, it gets done. I suspect any discussion of Foley would fall under that umbrella. For the record, the Blackhawk web guy says publically that Foley isn't coming back and has said that for a while now. Of course, he now has a new boss in McDonough.

I would agree he doesn't need to be a hockey expert and I would agree there are tremendous similarities marketing a sports team, no matter what sport it is. Rocky seems to want them all to work hand in hand anyways, plus John is a bright guy so I'm sure he'll pick up hockey knowledge as he goes along, if he doesn't know something about the sport already. It didn't seem like he did in the press conference. As long as he trusts the hockey people everything should be just fine.