Kenny Hates Prospects

QUOTE (WhiteSUX @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 05:13 PM) Plus as an added bonus your buddy will be able to catch all of the Twinkies games since they have Fox Sports North. Your half-hearted, gutless trolling is pathetic. You came here with the name WhiteSux and started out like you wanted to talk s*** on your way to a banning, but then you got cold feet and tried to start a baseball conversation. Now it's this little slappy s***. Either grow a set and throw a punch like a real troll or change your retarded name and talk baseball.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 09:36 PM) Freddy's worth it as long as you pay him less than $4-5 million a year. Agreed. People like to trash Freddy because the FB isn't nearly what it used to be, but the secondary stuff is there and he knows how to pitch. Sometimes I think people forget how easy it is for MLB hitters to park mid-90's heat when they don't have to worry about the guy on the mound getting his breaking ball over. For a team like the Yankees who are going to contend no matter what, a guy like Freddy could definitely make a difference, because even when he's not at his best, he can still get himself out of jams and get the Yankee offense back up there.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 09:26 PM) Yeah, but he's a hell of a lot more likely to regress than tend towards the league average or even maintain. Perhaps in that ballpark and in that division, but Freddy post-surgery does a better job taking care of himself, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he ends up physically stronger next season and capable of working deeper into games than last season. The pressure in NY isn't going to get to Freddy, but the bandbox part of it may. I'd like his chances to equal or improve upon what he did here last year however had he re-signed with us.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 02:09 PM) If the question is, will adult fans switch allegiance from the Cubs to the Sox, the answer is no. Just won't happen to any significant extent no matter how good or bad either team are. But... the Sox being better than the Cubs for a while, and the stadium going in opposite directions, will most certainly help the Sox draw more fans that might otherwise go to the Cubs. So they are competitors. Its just that they are competing in a couple specific areas: --People who are not die hard fans of either team, will flock more often to the team winning more and with a better stadium experience --Kids choose teams to follow, and getting more kids as fans will help attendence in the long run These are definite factors. And the Sox have done a much better job than the Cubs not only at winning, but at making the stadium a better experience for both adults and kids over the past decade or so. So yes, they are competitors, in a few specific areas. I will agree with this that under these conditions the teams are in direct competition with each other. I still doubt that it would come into play as much for people who have lived in the Chicagoland area for quite some time, but for people who are transplants from other areas, it's probably a huge factor.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 01:35 PM) Really? So the guy that goes to one game a year drags his grill and everything? I find that so interesting. It always seemed to me the tailgaters were loaded down with so much extra stuff that I assumed they did it more than one or two times a year. I guess I learned my new fact for the day. It's really nothing to bring a small grill and a cooler full of beer. Get a group together where you carpool, get whatever tickets you feel are necessary (cheapies are nice if you're planning on spending a good chunk of time in the bar) and have each person bring a little something. It's really easy that way. You end up with a lot of good food at a cheap price and you have fun that lasts for hours. At Miller Park you could probably just sleep there if you wanted to. I've stayed there hours after the game, until literally being one of like 5 cars left in the parking lot, and nobody gives a s***. It's like heaven over there. But anyway, it all depends on the person. You may be a hardcore fan but you don't mind hosting tailgates and bringing along a revolving door of friends/family/co-workers (some of whom don't give two s***s about baseball) throughout the season, because the main thing is that it's fun for everyone and you get to go to the ballpark. And it's a little cheaper that way, too, plus some added benefits occasionally (it's not unheard of to bring a bigass cooler and end up leaving the park with more beer than you yourself bought in the first place). Or OTOH maybe you are just one of these (in my eyes rare) people who don't care about baseball much but just want the ballpark experience. Like another poster mentioned, maybe you do it for the kids. Why would you want to make it a big hassle having to fight traffic to get there, then after parking rush to get into the park, then having to buy all park food, and then sitting in your seats all game like it's a chore, and then leaving as soon as the game is over? Why not instead get there a couple hours early, bring a small portable grill, easily obtainable for $20 or so if you don't have one, maybe even cheaper, throw a few burgers/brats/dogs on, play catch with the kid, have a beer, sit around and chat for a while? Then when it's time to head in, instead of feeling rushed, or feeling like you have to kill time, you're leisurely strolling up to the turnstiles with the taste of beer brat in your mouth, and a nice little buzz going, and you're enjoying the summer sun, and you're just happy to be there. And to top it off, you're not going to be pressured into buying Nazi ripoff ballpark food. But yeah, everyone tailgates. Non-tailgaters don't even know what they're missing IMO.

This is one of the best offseason moves Kenny has made this season.

Freddy continues to be underrated. 2010 league average (180IP): 4.14 ERA; 1.344 WHIP; 8.9 H/9; 1.0 HR/9; 3.2 BB/9; 6.8 K/9 2010 Freddy Garcia (157IP): 4.64 ERA; 1.376 WHIP; 9.8 H/9; 1.3 HR/9; 2.6 BB/9; 5.1 K/9 Freddy wasn't too far from being a league average pitcher last year, with the main knock being IP after his first full season back from surgery. And if you look at all the pitchers Freddy outperformed last year (and some of them may be surprising) while taking into account their salaries, what Freddy did for us was pretty damn valuable. He's certainly worth $2M guaranteed, so I have to believe there were better money offers out there. Freddy needs the opportunity to win a starting job and keep it though, so I'm sure that's why he went to New York. Good luck to him.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 30, 2011 -> 08:25 PM) Casual fans don't tailgate. Casual fans who decide to see a professional baseball game will have reasons like location of the stadium, the day and time of the game, promotions, and of course if there is buzz about one team. Some people actually do have family budgets and like any budgeting, small items and big items will occupy the same budget category. So yeah, movies are mixed in with ball games and trips to Six Flags. We'll have to disagree on a couple of these things then. I'm a casual Brewers fan and I see other casual Brewers fans tailgating all the time. Usually anytime we go, the tailgating is the part the casual and non-fans enjoy the most, because you get to hang out, eat good food, drink a few beers, just have conversation, toss the ball around, etc. It's really fun, and people are free to get up and walk around as they please without coming off as rude or disinterested in the game. There have been many times I've taken co-workers and friends who don't even know anything about baseball and they've loved it simply because of the tailgate party. If you think about what the ideal summer means to most people, it's basically the atmosphere of a tailgate party plus a beach. I agree on the second part but without the use of the term "casual fan" since I think most sports fans both 1) clearly identify with at least one favorite team, and 2) do not follow that team close enough to know a ton about it, and therefore are casual fans. People who watch Bulls games in the fourth quarter a couple times per week are casual fans, as are people who flip between whatever else they're watching and the Sox games here and there and only watch most games when they're playing a team like the Twins or Yankees or something. The people you're describing sound like non-fans, and if they don't follow a team and have real reason to go, they're nothing more than windfall, because you probably can't reach them anyway. I mean if they listen to sports radio and still don't care about baseball, or whether all they watch is the Food Network, no matter what the case, how do you reach them? The budget part I can see in theory. But the cost between a night at the movies is substantially less than the cost of a game, and for most people there's a theater pretty close. OTOH getting to the Cell or Wrigley, and then parking, and fighting traffic to and from, and stopping for gas and eating on the way there and maybe on the way back as well, plus eating at the park, plus beverages, etc. it really adds up for most people with a family. I imagine most families can make room for a movie night, or at least just give the kids some money and drop them off at the movies - even the dollar theater - with the kids sneaking in some cheap candy from the grocery store, but the ballpark is another matter entirely that has to be projected. And maybe there are families that operate on such a strict budget that they have to cut out X number of movie nights to save up enough to make it to a game, that add up and account for all their entertainment spending, but I can't imagine there are many of them. Frugality doesn't seem to lead to hardship as often as frivolous impulse spending does, and baseball games for most people with families are not an impulsive kind of thing since there are multiple schedules to account for as well as a lot more money needed up front, plus there's the matter of projecting out whether the funds to cover potentially gas, parking, and concessions will be there at a later date. QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jan 30, 2011 -> 08:32 PM) Some of them want to go to ballgames of their own accord because they enjoy the experience and want to root for a Chicago team, yes. Even people who claim to "hate baseball" enjoy going to baseball games much of the time, since they get to drink a little and casually watch some stuff happen in front of them. Even though that would seem to make their decision between the Sox and Cubs arbitrary, most of these people would rather attend a W than a L. The money's there. FWIW, growing up, my parents fell under the category of people who didn't give 2 craps about baseball but took me to games because I did. We ended up going to Toledo Mudhens games, rather than Tigers games, because the tickets were cheaper. We were pretty much equidistant between the two (Ann Arbor). They could have been swayed one way or another, though, by pretty much any passing wind. The appropriate buzz (e.g. a playoff race) could have provided that impetus. PS Thank god they didn't take me to Tigers games or I might be a Tigers fan....ugh. EDIT: I'm entirely aware that my anecdote is not a good analogy for Cubs/Sox for a lot of reasons. Just saying. I agree that there are those people, and that they go for the fun of it, but I think their impact is far overstated. Yes, some of them will inevitably buy tickets themselves, but I don't think it happens enough to really matter much. I think most of the time they're either there because someone gave them tickets or sold them tickets cheaply, or because someone else who is a fan - even just a casual fan - decided to go, and they want to go as a result. Or, as in your case, someone who can not afford/is not in position to purchase tickets (a child, for instance) wants to go, and so they go. And in your case, had you been older/aware enough to pick a specific team, just you being there probably would have cut the baseball options down to just one team, don't you think? I mean, the Mudhens are cheaper, but if you really, really wanted to see the Tigers then I imagine your parents would have probably done what they could to get you to a Tigers game regardless. And I guess the gist of what I'm arguing is that most people are going to have the decision to see a game either tied down to one specific team, or else tied to another person with one specific team in mind. I will say that these "any team" fans probably exist all over the place in Florida, but I just can't see that being the case here. I do know that there are those people who follow and are legitimate fans of both the Sox and Cubs, and under those circumstances they may pick which team to see based on performance that year (or some other criteria), but I don't believe there are enough of them to justify calling the Cubs competition. I think, as I've said before, that the Cubs actually help the Sox draw, and they encourage Sox fans to show more pride in their team, and whatever those benefits are, if they all could be tallied, they would far outweigh any losses resulting from the "any Chicago team" fans having to make a decision between the two. If that makes any sense.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jan 30, 2011 -> 08:11 PM) I can say from experience that there are quite a few people out there who purport to cheer for "any Chicago team", and given the choice between a competitive team and non-competitive team, will choose the competitive one. While I agree that the relationship is adversarial amongst much of the fanbase, there are the ever-elusive few who can go either way and whose money is still green. I think there's got to be some competition for their dollar sign, albeit less than in Los Angeles. Why wouldn't you try to get their support if you could? Do these people buy tickets though? Because that's all that matters. There are tons of these people at sporting events, and they definitely add up in attendance at the end of the year, but are they there because they really want to spend somewhere between $80 to upwards of a $1000 to see a game where they really don't care who wins, OR are they there because their friends/relatives/co-workers/company got them tickets and they felt it would be fun to go? I mean how many of these "any Chicago team" people actually initiate the ballpark experience? I can't think there would be enough of them to justify running Sox Pride TV spots at 2pm on TLC.

QUOTE (Disco72 @ Jan 30, 2011 -> 06:51 PM) I understand your point of view, but let me counter with this: when a team is winning (any team) and the stadium is suddenly full, are these latent fans of the team (e.g., the Sox) that just hadn't spent the money on the team and now decide to come to more games? Or is there a significant number of "casual" and "bandwagon" fans that fill the stadium? (Ok, that's a false dichotomy since I think it is some of both.) Also, how do you build a fan base? How do you engage that family of four so that they spend their entertainment money on a few extra Sox games per year instead of something else? So that when the sons/daughters of that family grow up, they also bring their kids to games on the South side? I think the question kind of answers itself in a way. If the fans are there when the team is winning, but they're absent when the team is losing, then the winning is clearly attracting the fans. And if that's the case, they must be fan enough to recognize and appreciate the difference between a good team and a bad team, and they clearly care enough to apply specific conditions to their attendance, meaning they're there for more than just "a day at the park" or whatever. So with that said I couldn't see how someone who would attend Sox games based on their on-field performance could interchangeably attend Cubs games, which is kind of what the "Cubs as competition" theory depends on. BTW I'm not disputing what you're saying in general practice, because it makes a lot of sense, and most of the time I think you'd be right on the money. But I just don't think it applies to the Cubs-Sox relationship. Even people who don't know a damn thing about baseball (and there are a lot of them) seem pretty eager to identify with one or the other, often for family reasons, and would be considered casual fans because they actually have a reason to buy tickets. The other people who don't identify with a particular team and probably don't care about baseball at all are not bandwagoners though, they're not even fans, they're just people who are brought along for the experience. And those people can't be reached anyway, so there's no point in spending money trying to, because they can think of a thousand other things to spend their money on than tickets to a baseball game, and they only matter in the sense that ownership must find ways to make money off these people while they're at the park. The idea is to market to the casual fans who have their allegiances, and then get these people to bring the non-fans to the game. The non-fans can then develop allegiances and become casual or hardcore fans simply by association with a relative/friend/significant other who is a fan, but there's no use in the team going out of it's way to advertise to these people, because their fandom is likely to be the result of a close personal relationship and therefore mostly emotional anyway. So I just don't think you're going to be able to appeal to Cubs fans unless there's, again, some special circumstance, like cheap tickets, a Cub fan friend/family member, etc. I wouldn't call the Cubs competition because they're not out there for the taking IMO. Being a Cubs fan to them is an identity the same way being a Sox fan is to us. I guess it's kind of like politics and being a staunch democrat or republican, except that most people fall somewhere in the middle as it is and therefore can be swayed depending on a particular stance on a particular issue, and also, the subject matter is far more important in real life than sports, so switching allegiances becomes ideological, financially motivated, etc. This differs from the Cubs-Sox dynamic because there's no real ill effects for the casual fan during a bad baseball season, so there's no real reason to switch to a currently superior product - especially when the state of the product is always in flux, and there are family connections to boot. There are probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of Cubs/Sox fans out there who would say "My (mother/father/grandparent/etc) would turn over in his grave if he/she ever saw me in a _____ jersey." And many if not most of the people who would say these things probably couldn't even name the starting rotation of their favorite team. QUOTE (Disco72 @ Jan 30, 2011 -> 06:51 PM) I think the Sox are doing what Anaheim is doing, albeit in a less publisized way: trying to move the long term fan base in the area towards a Sox orientation. I think you do that by consistently winning (and also with lesser things like making the park more family friendly). I think the Angels have to go about things differently than the Sox because LA was always a Dodgers town. Chicago OTOH has a rich history with both clubs. There are multiple generations of Sox and Cubs fans all over the country, I mean my own family's Sox fandom spans 4 generations. There are lots of people like that. The Angels I don't think ever had the support the Sox have had historically. Maybe they draw great now. Maybe there are a lot of diehard Angels fans out there now. But I just can't see it comparing to the Sox. That franchise was established in 1961 and didn't finish in first until 1979. They've gone through 3 name changes, and watched as Oakland and the Dodgers and the Giants ran out the biggest names in California. They had Nolan Ryan, but my god look at all the legends that came through those other places. Look at the Dodgers. They moved from Brooklyn to LA in 1958 but date back to 1884. Sandy Koufax, Fernando Valenzuela, Kirk Gibson's walk-off etc. just look at all the history there. The Dodgers are 5-4 in World Series appearances since moving to LA, while the Angels are 1-0 in franchise history. On the Sox side of it, they have the history, they have the deep roots, everything. The Cubs weren't exactly the Dodgers either. They have got about as much publicity around the world that you can ask for a sports team just because so many people love their colors, and because the Black Sox scandal was one of the biggest sports stories ever. All they need to do is win and the fans will be there.

QUOTE (Disco72 @ Jan 30, 2011 -> 05:12 PM) It is pretty basic business strategy. If someone is going to buy sports tickets, they have the option of buying tickets to any of the major sports teams in Chicago. Milwaukee is not a substitute product except for those in the northern suburbs. If you want to buy tickets to a summer sporting event, you choose between Sox and Cubs. One anecdote....a friend of mine works for the Braves. His biggest "rivals" from a ticket sales perspective are the other sports teams in Atlanta, and to a lesser extent, other means by which people can spend their entertainment dollars (movies, concerts, etc). For casual fans, the Sox and Cubs are substitutes for each other. As I've stated above, this is not about die hard fan bases, but instead about the bandwagon type fans that take attendance from 30,000 to capacity. Further, I think your argument tends to ignore that the Sox have outdrawn the Cubs many times in the past, just not much in the recent past. The more the Sox can appeal to the casual fan as well as non-baseball fans that they can draw to the sport, the better off they'll be. I just can't buy this at all. Imagine a family of four having a desire to watch a live MLB game but yet not one individual in the group has his/her desire backed by even a passing interest in a particular team, which would be enough to make a clear decision with regards to what team to go see. The only thing I could think of would be a family where maybe the father and the son are fans of one team, and the mother and daughter are fans of the other, so maybe they decide to go with the better team that year. But how many times would that happen? I disagree also that Miller Park is only an alternative to people in the Northern burbs. If you're only planning on going to game or two per year, and you're as much interested in the tailgating as the game itself, then the extra bit of driving required probably doesn't mean a whole lot anyway considering you're already taking an entire day out of your schedule and devoting it to the game. The idea of sitting around deciding how to divvy up entertainment dollars is pretty nuts to me too. Baseball games are going to be separate for most people. Movies, trips to arcades, going out to eat, going to the mall, etc. are generally quite a bit cheaper than baseball games, and these things happen spur of the moment, or are maybe planned a day or so in advance. But baseball games people will plan for well in advance, months in advance sometimes, and their financial states may decide how many games they'll take in per year. A baseball game would IMO be a lot like Six Flags or a water park, a concert, going to the museum/aquarium, etc. where if you can afford it maybe you go/take your kids several times per year, but generally you'd plan to hit it at least once no matter what, and it's always a separately budgeted thing. I just don't think people would ever say "Well it costs me $350 to take the family out to the game so instead of doing that we'll just go see a movie a few more times, because several trips to the theatre is a reasonable substitution for a baseball game." It's more like "I don't have the money to go to the game now, and I suck at saving my money, so we'll just go to the movies because there's really no other option." I agree that the more the Sox appeal to the casual fan the better they'll do, but even the casual fans assert their allegiances, and at least in my experience they seem to be even more assertive about what team they prefer. Usually the overly boisterous "Cubs/Sox suck!" people don't know a whole hell of a lot about either team. So I can see how, for instance, adding to the area around the Cell would get more casual Sox fans to come see the Sox, but I can't see how improving the area around the Cell would attract casual Cub fans to see the Sox, at least not unless there is some other circumstance, like dating a Sox fan, or having a Sox fan friend, etc.

QUOTE (Disco72 @ Jan 30, 2011 -> 03:28 PM) The Sox did not make the decision because of the Cubs situation, but you cannot ignore that the Cubs are the Sox's biggest competition for ticket sales. Putting a winning product on the field while the Cubs are not certainly helps the Sox significantly, especially as the Sox continue on their quest to build the Sox into a team that is not the "second" team in the city. How do you figure? Sox-Cubs is one of the biggest rivalries in baseball. If anything, the Brewers are competition for the Sox, not the Cubs, since Sox fans can easily make the drive to Miller Park and watch a good baseball game in (IMO) a better atmosphere with better prices. There can't be too many better places to tailgate than Miller Park. The Sox are there for the diehards, but they need to win. The Cubs, if anything, actually help the Sox. Cubs series tickets are always the hottest tickets at the Cell, and no matter what the Cubs are doing, just the fact that they're there helps keep the focus on the game of baseball itself. If there were no Cubs in Chicago then nobody would care about baseball when the Sox are bad. I also think the rivalry is a great thing to have, and it generally encourages Sox fans and Cubs fans to take more pride in their respective teams than maybe they otherwise would have. Sox and Cub fans wear their allegiances like a badge of honor because of the rivalry, so I think both actually benefit each other. Going to see the Sox can be a big commitment for a lot of people in the burbs considering the commute and the pricing, so understandably they have to have a reason to make the trip. If the Sox can win something this year (at least make the ALCS), and if JR & co. can get enough money back to keep a $130M payroll heading into 2012, then there's definitely reason for optimism re: an even higher payroll in the future, as early season fan interest + a season of good baseball = fans showing up and spending money. But no matter what the case is, I don't think the Cubs success or failure will ever have much if anything to do with it. BTW I'm not really a fan of all the Sox-are-the-2nd-team stuff either. They get a lot of support from the suburbs, more than enough to pack the house to the degree necessary to support a top-6/7 payroll, but they just have to win to do that. The Cubs OTOH attract a s***load of fans all the time, but Wrigley Field and the establishments around it have a whole lot to do with that. Take that away and IMO it would be pretty close, and sooner or later the need for a more modern facility is a reality the Cubs will have to face. The Cubs however are without question the first team nationally, but the Sox are very capable of picking up some more fans nationally (or retaining transplants) given the greater number of national broadcasts now. In short, I think the "2nd team in the second city" stuff, at least in current times, is mostly a product of Wrigley's value and the Sox ugly little habit of choking on the Twins when it counts. It's also an excuse for not winning. Blaming the fans for not showing up to watch a crappy/water-treading team is blaming the consumer for not purchasing an inferior product, and that's just retarded.

QUOTE (Disco72 @ Jan 28, 2011 -> 11:52 AM) If the team is performing, there is no way you trade Danks during the season. Even if for some reason they're not, it's far likelier we'd see a repeat of the crazy 2003 deadline IMO, where Kenny brought in Alomar, Everett, Schoenweis, and Sullivan. But I don't know how it would get to that point, considering the Tigers have lots of problems, the Royals and Indians are both looking at 90-loss seasons, and the Twins aren't exactly juggernauts despite being solid. Things would have to go seriously, seriously wrong to be out of it this year.

The time to trade Danks was this offseason. The Sox really want (and need) to win this year, so you have to imagine they want him pretty bad. Peter Gammons said the Rangers tried to acquire Robinson Chirinos from the Cubs. They would have then sent Chirinos, Derek Holland, Engel Beltre, and Frank Francisco for Matt Garza. Considering Danks is actually quite a bit better than Matt Garza, and also probably a better extension candidate for Texas given his family is there, imagine what Kenny would have had to turn down if the Rangers made an offer. We could have gotten a massive haul. The deadline deals don't happen this year unless we're picking up improvements. We're too goo to be too far out of it around the deadline to sell, and there's no 2012 if we don't win this year. But if we fail to win this year I imagine Danks, Floyd, Quentin, and even possibly the arb-eligible Alexei are gone. It would be one hell of a firesale. Hopefully this doesn't happen.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 03:58 PM) like your list, I would just swap Brewers and Jays, just because I am more of an immediate payoff type and the fact that the Crew knew Prince is walking and went all in this year and made Gallardo their 3rd starter was damn impressive! Not to mention I think Saito was a nice under the radar signing. I agree, the Brewers had a terrific offseason, and I'm only putting the Jays first because that Wells deal was an act of God that single-handedly saved a franchise. But that move took place in LaLa Land, and if you want to talk about real, Earth- and reality-based baseball moves, the Brewers have had the best offseason. I love every move they've made. Miller Park is going to be pretty fun this year.

They should just move Hafner already. Eat everything but a couple mil per and open up some space. A DH slot on a rebuilding team has to be extremely valuable considering you can use it to rest young guys while still getting them ABs. In fact, they might even be better off dumping Hafner and using his spot for a late-January bargain signing or two, since at least then they might have a shot at a couple decent prospects around the deadline. Hafner vs. RHP is a nice DH platoon partner. Someone would want him IMO.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 03:08 PM) I wonder if Jon Heyman is going crazy over this... he said Hal Steinbrener had a top 5 off-season because he overruled Cashman on Soriano and he handled the Jeter situation well... he might make him #1 now with this signing!! http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writ...tars/index.html Seriously, he's #3 and there's not one comment about them completely whiffing on every major FA they went after especially Red Sox snagging Crawford... guess he needs the NYY fans to up his hit count!! Wow, that is pretty bad. IMO: 1. Jays 2. Brewcrew 3. Phillies 4. White Sox 5. Red Sox (don't like the Crawford deal) 6. Cubs --- 30. Texas Rangers, for losing Cliff Lee following a franchise-defining season and then failing to seriously upgrade the starting staff

QUOTE (Brian @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 03:27 PM) Can we just let the Freddy stuff go away, please? Anyone we pluck from AA/AAA would be just as good or bad Yeah.... except no.

I'd love the move. Great to see the Sox keep on digging those quarters out from under the cushions, too. Duchscherer would be ideal in an ideal world, but if he's in our budget it's probably because there's still a lot wrong there, and if he's looking pretty good - well, then he's not in our budget. Freddy OTOH is believable. He's a Sox guy and a hometown discount candidate, plus he can trust that the Sox will be upfront with him re: Peavy coming back. If Freddy wants to start when Peavy gets back then I'm sure the Sox will deal him off to give him an opportunity elsewhere.

^I'm not sure I could come up with many reasons to doubt the Red Sox (at least on paper) and I hate that team. Boston alone could probably cut their 40-man roster in half, add a few more specs to create 2 25-man rosters, and then run out two separate teams in two separate divisions in baseball and either contend or win in both.

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Jan 22, 2011 -> 02:44 PM) No, its absolutley not a knock on Ozzie. At least not in this case. Are my parents responsible for who myself or my siblings are dating? You've never seen a girl thats a little too feisty act like a fool when she thinks her boyfriend- an extension of herself, is slighted? You think she punched someone because Ozzie sometimes can't shut up and she's dating one of his sons? I don't think Ozzie has any business telling his son who he can and cannot date. My point was that Ozzie is the enabler here. He is well aware of his son's antics and he has all the power necessary to keep him away from work-related events. If Ozzie managed an Applebees there would be no reason for his son to be there. Same thing here, no reason for him to be there. Yet Ozzie is allowing it even though he knows it may lead to more s*** from Oney. And I'm sure I'll come off as misogynistic here, but a man is supposed to keep tabs on his woman if she's capable of flying off the handle like that. Something tells me Oney isn't man enough to do that, and that if anything he probably encourages her behavior. And actually, I would imagine the girl controls him if anything. Nobody with a sac follows his dad around like a lost puppy and only breaks the umbilical when he wants to go out and spend his money. I'm an Ozzie fan and I just wish he'd cut the s*** already.

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Jan 22, 2011 -> 12:42 PM) There comes a point in time where you're responsible for your own actions and can't have mommy and daddy to fall back on. Oney isn't 15 anymore. I don't think his actions should be grouped in on Ozzie. Ozzie didn't punch a heckler, hell, neither did Oney, actually. His girl did. All this tells me is his girl watches too much Jersey Shore. I'm glad Ozzie is here for at least two more years, hope he's here even longer. Oney's girl did it so it's not a knock on Ozzie? Sure. Oney's "girl" is just following suit. Most people would never throw a brick through a store window and then come running out with a new TV, but when they see the rest of the city doing it suddenly there's no issue anymore. Same thing. Ozzie's lack of parental action has created a playground atmosphere for the Guillen family and all the little hangers-on that follow it. The punishment for Oney and his "girl" is probably to sit out of the kickball game at recess. I'm tired of hearing this "he's responsible for his own life" stuff. Does anyone actually believe that? If your father or son had such an extremely prestigious and lucrative position would you really be so careless as to act like that, knowing it could be to his own detriment? And even if you didn't think of that at first, and you acted like an idiot and got your son/father in trouble, and then were told afterwards that you f***ed up big time and could have cost that person dearly, would you show up *again* and repeat the process? Clearly Ozzie's job is to take charge here. If this were Jay Marriotti saying these things you can bet your ass Ozzie would be all over him, but he's not, he's his little b**** son, so he lets it slide. Ozzie is the one with the power here, and if he wants to have Oney banned from the building because Oney needs to be banned from the building, then security will be happy to help. If Ozzie wants to have Oney stop running his little b**** mouth on Twitter then he can take away his allowance, his car, his cell, everything. But Ozzie doesn't care enough apparently. This is really getting annoying. It's not even ST yet and we've already had two Oney dramas ruining s***.

So they extend Ozzie on the same day Oney pulls more embarrassing s***. Great. I love Ozzie but I'm really starting to want him gone. The Chicago White Sox are a proud organization, not a Guillen Family playground. Some of the greatest stories in sports history have come out of this organization, and one of those stories led to two of the best sports films of all time. I really think these stupid little c***s are so full of themselves that they have no idea of the history they're pissing on. Omar Vizquel personally received the blessings of Luis Aparicio to wear his number. That's two of the greatest SS of all time honoring each other. Frank Thomas cried in his #35 retirement ceremony here just last year and we've got these little dickless Kardashian boys running around acting like they own the place because Daddy is the manager. I wonder how Reinsdorf feels when this s*** s*** reaches him? I put last year's offseason on Kenny and last year's results on Kenny, and now I'm thinking the worst move he made last year wasn't Teahen, but NOT going ahead with that Ozzie to Florida trade. Don't even need Stanton to justify it, either. Anything that gets these Kardashians the hell away from here is worth it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2011 -> 10:28 AM) Really? Drabek isn't included? That's insanity. I guess after they got rid of Gary Matthews Jr.'s deal the Angels decided that they hadn't blown enough money on CF's this year. I'd have done the same thing, in a heartbeat too. Wells isn't even a top-end CF anymore, so even if he's healthy he's still probably a $5-6M overpayment per year, and a hell of a lot more than that in 2011. And that's if he's healthy. Wells is very capable of being a $4-6M per player over the remainder of the deal. Very few unproven prospects are ever worth the amount of money that's being pissed away on Wells. This is the craziest deal I've ever seen. Ever. AA deserves a statue for this, like really. He'll probably get a couple halfway decent prospects for Napoli and Rivera around the deadline too, so I doubt he even has to pay more than half their salaries. This is the biggest heist I've seen by any GM ever. This trade automatically makes the Jays the biggest winner of the offseason IMO.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2011 -> 05:45 PM) I know I'd be thrilled. It would be rough to wait out the time for him to grow up if he took Joe's path though. I think much of the fan growing pains with Crede stems from our overall s***tiness as a ballclub though. Joe's gradually improving defense would have been a lot more noticeable had Frank and Maggs not gotten hurt in 2004 as one example. I just hope Morel in 2011 doesn't become Brian Anderson in 2006, ie we put a young guy out there for defensive purposes and then throw him under the bus for a lack of offense when the actual problem is another area, in that case the bullpen. Knowing Morel's defensive abilities I don't see how he could hurt us being out there.