Y2Jimmy0

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 1, 2016 -> 09:31 AM) Best write-up I've seen on Player Compensation: Teams that lose a free agent who rejects a qualifying offer will still get a draft pick. The details: For most teams, that pick would be a sandwich pick immediately following the competitive-balance picks that are awarded after the second round. However, if that team comes from the 15 smallest markets and is receiving revenue-sharing money, and it loses a free agent who signs a contract worth at least $50 million, that pick would follow the first round. And if the team losing that player is over the luxury-tax threshold, the pick would follow the fourth round. http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=21-0595981839814890747-4 h/t sss larry for finding Some were speculating that teams would try to do 2 years deals for under $50 million but my interpretation of the rule is that if you sign a player with a QO, you are losing your 3rd round pick unless you are a tax team, then you lose your 2nd and 5th rounders. I think this happens regardless of the contract that the player signs.

QUOTE (peppers312 @ Dec 1, 2016 -> 08:54 AM) give me Schwarber, Contreras and Gleyber Torres for Sale and we can start talking with the Cubs. Gleyber Torres is on the Yankees. Do you mean Eloy Jimenez?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 1, 2016 -> 08:01 AM) I just wonder how they determine contract size over $50 million if there are incentives and things that trigger contracts becoming guaranteed. If you sign a guy to a contract that guarantees $49 million for 3 years, but he gets another 3 years and $60 million guaranteed after his first plate appearance, is there draft pick forfeiture? You would think if you are giving someone $50 million plus, a second round pick shouldn't me so much to you, but it might make the guys right on the $50 million worth line have to accept shorter term contracts. Mike Ferrin just tweeted it and I can't use twitter at work. It would be helpful in here. Here's what he's saying: Players turn down the QO, if a tax teams signs them then they forfeit their 2nd and 5th rounder. If a non tax team signs them they forfeit their 3rd rounder. This is where I've seen both but Ferrin says team losing the QO FA would receive a pick in between round 1-2 if the players gets a contract more than $50 million and would receive a pick after Competitive Balance Round B if players signs for less than $50 million. If a luxury tax team loses a QO free agent, they get a pick after 4th round.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 1, 2016 -> 07:44 AM) Players didn't try hard solely because of home-field advantage. They tried hard way before that rule was implemented and they will keep trying as hard in the future. The nature of the sport is why the MLB game is the most popular and players try harder. Mike Trout going 100% for 3 at-bats and a few fly balls is a a lot different than LeBron giving full effort on offense and defense for 20+ minutes or Von Miller trying to run through a left tackle to destroy a QB or running back 15-20 times. Nothing will change as far as your All-Star viewing experience goes. Sorry but a HR in the 9th inning by a Tampa Bay Rays player shouldn't give the AL home-field in the World Series over an NL with a better record. Dumbest rule in sports is finally fixed.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Dec 1, 2016 -> 07:33 AM) Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the rule. But being designated a major market team here doesn't affect our pick or what pick we give up either. Far as I can tell it's not a trading of picks. And if one of our players signs with the Yankees, I don't see why we wouldn't still get the top available pick. I guess maybe it's a very very slight disadvantage in the oft chance we sign guys over 50 million and the other team gets a better pick than deserved because of it There are no 1st round picks given up for signing QO Free Agents anymore. For example, if Dodgers signed Frazier to a 4/70 deal next year, they'd forfeit their 2nd and 5th round pick to do so. It's not clear which pick the White Sox would receive in return but it sounds like a 2nd for tax teams and 3rd for non-tax teams. This will spur trading because most teams would rather have the prospects than the 3rd round draft pick.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Nov 30, 2016 -> 10:55 PM) This won't change much for the Sox. Nothing in it should instigate the Sox to give any more than their usual half-hearted effort on the international front; the forward-thinkers are now limited, so the Sox won't be hurt as badly by their international lethargy. It will change a little bit. If the White Sox bonus pool was say $3.4 million before, they'd spend the $3.4 million. These caps are stupid and hurt the kids that are trying to make fair market value but it helps the Sox a lot. With a $5 million cap on spending, I have no reason to believe that the White Sox won't spend the full $5 million every year. This helps them but I hate it.

I'm reading the draft rules as no more 1st round pick in compensation. Rosenthal saying it'll be a 2nd or 3rd rounder in return. If that's the case, then the Royals got f***ed. They have decisions to make. Cain, Escobar, Hosmer, Moustakas, Duffy, and Davis are all free agents. I thought they'd just QO most of them and get 4-5 1st rounders. Not the case anymore. They probably need to sign who they can and trade the rest. Yikes.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 30, 2016 -> 10:25 PM) So, leaves open the definition of amateur/professional in foreign leagues. Yeah. There's no way that guys like Otani and older Cubans will be subject to this. I wonder what the cutoff age is.

User Actions Following Jayson StarkVerified account ‏@jaysonst Sources say every team will have a total bonus pool of about $5 million to sign foreign-born amateur players. And they can't exceed that cap This will help the White Sox but kind of sucks in general.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Nov 30, 2016 -> 09:43 PM) Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal 2m2 minutes ago Team that loses QO free agent will get pick only if player signs contract of $50M+. Pick it gets will depend upon that team’s market size. This does make some sense though. For example, Sox could hang on to Melky for the season, give him a QO. He declines and Sox would get a 1st round pick for him. It's stops teams from doing it with guys that aren't worth it. He wouldn't be getting a $50 million contract so in this instance, there's no reason to hang on to him. Frazier is a different story.

I'm in a Survivor League with 5 people left. I'm between Oakland at home vs Buffalo and Green Bay home vs Houston this week. Not sure who I'm going to take. Any thoughts?

QUOTE (miracleon35th @ Nov 29, 2016 -> 10:02 PM) Isn't it curious that people have to claim that he is? I didn't, I just responded with my opinion ....he isn't. You disagree. OK. The state of the White Sox in the last decade? How about the state of the cubs in the last century before they won it in the 9th inning of game 7, against Cleveland? The point is, winning the WS isn't what makes people fans of a team. It's about more than winning or there wouldn't be 30 major league teams in the league. You think there isn't a whole lot to go on now,? I disagree with you on that as well.. I am excited about any possible trades and how they will work out. There has been way too much piling on by critics of the White Sox and too much spiking the ball in the endzone by cub fans. Those of us who are true Sox fans look the other way and look forward to Opening Day 2017. LOL Dan Bernstein being a Sox fan isn't something that can be agreed or disagreed about. He's talked about being a Sox fan for years. I've talked about Sox related stuff with him multiple times at remotes. You're wrong here but hey whatever.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Nov 29, 2016 -> 02:20 PM) If the Cubs were offering the Sox the best package and the Sox said no because "f*** it, we aren't trading with the Cubs" then that's incredibly stupid. And it seems like some longtime, well-respected posters on this site would be fine with that which is insane.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 29, 2016 -> 02:17 PM) Bernstein has no White Sox inside information. Just go back and read some of the things he claimed to have sources on. They were all BS, like the time they were going to get prospects for taking on bad contracts, and then mentioned a salary cap. He didn't realize there is no salary cap in baseball. Come on, man. He's worked in this town for a long time. He's also a White Sox fan. He's also not claiming to have any info other than speculating that the White Sox GM is a very smart man that most likely wouldn't say this.

Bernstein just said he'd be stunned if Rick Hahn thinks this way. He doesn't doubt that it came from someone in the organization though. Talk about cutting your GM's nuts off.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 29, 2016 -> 02:07 PM) It was actually on CSN last night. They actually asked David Haugh about it. He thought it was the right thing to do for the White Sox. His reasoning, if Sale helped the Cubs win, JR would be remembered for handing WS trophy(s) to them. That wouldn't be good. Handing it to them? The Cubs don't even need Chris Sale. They won a World Series without him and will probably be favored to win another one. You guys couldn't stand seeing Sale win one there if 4 studs come back in return that were the start of the Sox resurgence? Some of these opinions are mind-numbingly insane.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 29, 2016 -> 01:58 PM) To be fair, they didn't "come out and say it" Someone else is reporting what they heard. I know that. The fact that it got out at all is a huge problem.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Nov 29, 2016 -> 01:54 PM) Good move if it's for our elite talent. Their success hurts the Sox an incredible amount, whether people here want to accept that or not. This is a terrible opinion. The Sox shouldn't care that the Cubs won the World Series. They should care that somebody other than them did. Shack is right. If it's out there that you don't want to deal with the Cubs then you can't even use them as leverage against other teams. Nothing good can come from this information being made public somehow. Stop being afraid and act like a major league franchise.

In Buster Olney's piece today, he implied that Sale wouldn't be going to the Cubs because the White Sox told the Cubs they wouldn't trade with them. Matt Abbatacola from 670 The Score reported today that he was told that the Sox won't trade with them at all. 670 has been hammering the Sox all day and rightfully so. I don't expect the Cubs to have the best package for Sale without including Schwarber but negotiating with 28 partners instead of 29 because of a fake rivalry is one of the stupidest f***ing things I've ever heard. I hope that it's not true but this reeks of Jerry Reinsdorf.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 29, 2016 -> 09:24 AM) Carter available really undercuts Morneaus market. Wonder if we roll with Avi or sign one of these guys. Does it? Morneau is a LHB. Carter is RH.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Nov 29, 2016 -> 08:30 AM) No wonder they're non-tendering Carter. It's exactly the type of gamble that rebuilding teams should make. 1.170 OPS with 124 HR in 3 seasons in the KBO.

Works for me. I figured he'd try to get part of the Bulls at some point. I don't agree with everything he's done politically but jesus christ people. You wouldn't be a Sox fan anymore? Really? Jerry f***ing Reinsdorf is the current owner. Go read "The Game" with all the inside info from the owners' perspectives during the strike and late 90's and get back to me about how terrible it'd be. How could you root for them? You guys are as whiny as Cubs fans were when "they had to root for Chapman". Get over it, or don't and leave the fanbase. Either works for me.

QUOTE (Brian @ Nov 26, 2016 -> 09:22 AM) Wish there was an answer for how to treat Catholic football teams in the playoffs. IC has less than 500 kids so not sure 7A would be an accurate class for them. They have 300 kids in their school. They pull from a much larger area than Carlinville though.

It sucks for Carlinville that they were the best team in 3A but had to play a 7A school in the finals.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 24, 2016 -> 10:43 PM) Harry, good post as usual. Thanks for explaining that "if the QB is not under duress, you don't call the grounding." I did not know that. At first I was thinking, "How stupid of Fenwick to not just have the QB run a few steps back or to the side and then take a knee." Just out of curiosity, why is the rule that the QB can heave the ball downfield if he's not under duress? That seems like a creepy way to assure victory with five seconds left or so. It sure looks like grounding even if it isn't. I saw a quote in the Trib where the Fenwick coach was driving home and assumed he'd cost his kids a victory. Even he figured the grounding call was correct, cause it LOOKS like grounding. This is one, unfortunate situation. My take is the courts can't get involved and change an outcome of a sporting event and they did the right thing, simply because games are lost by refs calls and all sorts of blunders all the time. I do understand the sentiment of the poster saying PN should refuse to play the final because it's good sportsmanship. they didn't even rush the passer. However, they did win fair and square in OT after the bad bad call. Very sad situation. Would Fenwick have been favored in the final or expected to get mauled by East St. Looie? Neither team would be expected to beat ESTL. Even if it;'s deemed Intentional Grounding, the game is still over. It can end on an offensive penalty. The officials did a horrible job. I bet if Fenwick asked for a meeting immediately though they could have held up the outcome. I for one would not have sent my team out for overtime without an explanation but the coach didn't know. The judge should have told him to take the safety next time.