Chicago White Sox

He’d definitely be a guy I’d target this offseason. Convince him that a year at the Cell could help those power numbers rebound. I believe historically he’s been a pretty good framer (not sure about 2017) so help the young staff for a few months before possibly becoming an interesting trade chip.

Alright this is mostly just bulls***, but let’s say this is his team selection process: 1. Wants to hit most days when he’s not pitching (DH required) => eliminates 15 NL teams 2. Wants to join non-established or rebuilding team => eliminates HOU, NYY, BOS, CLE, MIN, KC, BAL, LAA, TEX 3. Prefers large city with respectable Japanese population => eliminates TOR, TB, DET 4. Prefers organization with both stability & upside => eliminates OAK 5. Prefers club without expansive history of Japanese players => eliminates SEA Theoretically that leaves us as the winner if money truly doesn’t matter!

Dan really grew on me over the years. I really enjoyed his work on the CSN Chicago White Sox podcast this year. Nothing against Merkin, but sucks to lose a dedicated beat writer who isn’t a mouthpiece for the organization. Hopefully he finds another job in Chicago. Also, f*** SSS Larry for being a dick to him on Twitter that one time. Dan handled his s*** pretty well all things considered.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 15, 2017 -> 07:08 AM) #1 is that we don't even appear to be trying. We haven't been scouting him at all at his starts. While I agree with this point, I’m not sure it really matters when you’re talking about a player of his reputation and a $300k signing bonus. They’ve certainly seen enough tape of him to confirm that he’s worth $300k. More likely than not though the front office simply doesn’t think he’ll accept such a small bonus when other teams can offer several million more and don’t think it’s worth wasting the time/resources. I think that would be pretty foolish as it’s not like we’re going to have an overly active winter. Defintiely worth the Hail Mary shot IMO.

QUOTE (Soha @ Nov 15, 2017 -> 06:56 AM) I didn't know of those rumors. I've been so dismissive of this in my head that I haven't really followed it much. So I guess that's good news. Obviously take with a grain of salt, but this kid is clearly a different breed. His ambitions go well beyond the money and if he in fact wants to be one of the greatest, going to a rebuilding team where his impact can be best demonstrated makes some sense.

QUOTE (Soha @ Nov 15, 2017 -> 06:15 AM) It would feel like a longshot in every possible way: 1) One of the worst teams in baseball 2) Weren't among the teams originally thought to be interested 3) A team that doesn't have a sexy ballpark, fanbase or history. What exactly is going to draw him here? Sure it's possible...but it feels like a 1 in 1000 chance at best. There are “rumors” he wants to join a rebuilding/non-established team. Look I don’t see it happening, but theoretically if those rumors are true the Sox make a lot of sense. Plus like others have said, we could let him DH most days he’s not pitching, which rules out a bunch of rebuilding clubs. Again, I’m skeptical of all this, but I didn’t think he’d sacrifice millions upon millions to come over as soon as possible and that appears to be the case.

While I’d love to extend Abreu, you got to listen to offers on him & Avi. I’d really need to be blown away to move Abreu. I think he’s that important to having a quick, successful rebuild. But if someone is offering a legit blue chip prospect and another solid piece, you probably have to make that move. I just don’t see that happening and would rather keep him around to anchor the middle of our lineup and serve as both a mentor and a free agent recruiting tool. Avi I would definitely accept less for because of the simple fact I don’t want to commit big dollars for him to keep around. Obviously I wouldn’t just give him away, but if I could get a prospect in the 40 to 70 range plus another interesting piece or two I jump all over that. Beyond the fact I’m skeptical of extending him, part of the reason I’m in favor of an Avi trade is Nicky Delmonico. I’m a huge believer in this kid and think he has a chance to be a very solid LF. He needs to be given a full-time opportunity IMO and if you assume Jimenez will push his way up sooner rather than later then there simply isn’t space for all three. Also, given our minor league OF depth (Robert, Rutherford, Adolfo, etc.), I think it’s smarter to roll the dice on Nicky and see where things stand next offseason before committing big money to an OF.

QUOTE (WBWSF @ Nov 12, 2017 -> 06:52 AM) 1) White Sox Opening Day Payrolls. 2017=$95 million. 2016=$98 million. 2015=$115 million. 2014=$91 million. 2013=$119 million. 2012 = $96 million. 2011= $129 million. 2010= $108 million. 2009=$96 million. 2008= $121 million. 2) I keep reading that the 2018 White Sox payroll will be around $75 million. Forbes magazine has said that the White Sox franchise brings in about $250 million dollars. The 2018 White Sox will be one of the most profitable teams in MLB. More moola for JR. You really don’t get how this works do you. Revenue profit and there are expenses other than payroll. And the Sox are unlikely to bring as much revenue in this year as they normally would because the team is rebuilding and likely won’t be very good. And guess what, when you’re rebuilding and not trying to be very good, you typically don’t waste money on unnecessary players to appease short-sighted fans like yourself. Trust the process and understand the payroll will rise back up when this team actually needs to spend.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Nov 11, 2017 -> 11:57 PM) Is he wrong, bro? Don’t call me bro, guy. And yes, I think him stating we’ll never see $150M payroll under as a fact is absurd.

QUOTE (Jimmy3Putt @ Nov 11, 2017 -> 11:48 PM) I just checked it out: $129,000,000 in the year 2010 is equivalent to $144,813,231.46 in 2017. I think a $150,000,000 in 2019 or 2020 isn't out of the question. This. We’ve already come close that number when you adjust for inflation. Add in the fact that there are all sorts of new revenue streams since 2010 plus a new TV deal for the Sox coming up, $150M isn’t really an absurd target. Doesn’t mean it will definitely happen (attendance still matters), but completely ruling it out is ridiculous.

QUOTE (WBWSF @ Nov 11, 2017 -> 06:31 PM) The highest payroll the White Sox have had was in 2011 when it was $129 million. The second highest was $121 million in 2008. They have never had a payroll of $150 million and never will as long as JR owns the team. Lol...ok bro.

QUOTE (Springfield SoxFan @ Nov 10, 2017 -> 06:28 PM) I believe Polo and Clarkin will be protected. I just can’t see any reason why Clarkin would be selected. There has to be more promising left-handed pitching prospects that will be available in the Rule 5 draft.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Nov 10, 2017 -> 06:00 PM) Add Jimenez, Guerrero, Peter, Gillaspie and Adolfo. Remove: Hanson, May, Putnam, Infante, Beck and Alburquerque. 6 spots open. Would consider a few others for sure. Adolfo very unlikely to get taken, but I am OK removing any doubt. He needs to keep guys like him in our system. I agree with this. Maybe it’s a 1-2% chance he gets taken, but a rebuilding team shouldn’t take that risk with a talent like Adolfo, especially when we have the roster space. I also think Jimmy is right and Clark will be added.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 10, 2017 -> 02:29 PM) I think that's simplifying it, but I totally hear you. I don't know - or haven't read - about the complete extent of the relationships these women had with CK. Completely independent from this situation, in which clearly CK was wrong and at fault and used his power to manipulate and abuse these women, my question is......... has anyone here ever sent *inappropriate* photos via phone pre-emptively with a woman (or man) you've been talking to and the conversation moves in a flirty/sexual direction? And by that I mean, before a woman has expressly said "hey send me a photo"? There's... an art to flirting, right? Knowing the right moments to do and say the right things, and often times those *right* moments aren't expressly said, because that takes the fun out of it - on both sides. Y'all can't honestly tell me that all of your sexual interactions have gone according to a politically correct formula. That's where this line becomes blurry, because one person may be interpreting signals one way, and one may be on a completely different planet, but you don't know unless you 1) make a move or 2) ask. If it's a woman who's actually interested, asking often turns them off. If they aren't, making the move is the WRONG choice. But you DON'T KNOW which that person IS until you try one! That's the whole f***ing difficulty with all of this, and these days, as a single guy, it's honestly paralyzing. When in doubt, always send a dick pic! That way there will be no confusion if she’s into you or not!

I agree with the poster who doesn’t want to lock up Abreu to a $20M AAV deal until he’s 37. That’s why you sign him to a four year extension this offseason. The closer you get to free agency with him, the deeper into his mid & late 30’s an extension will require. I feel pretty good about him remaining a highly productive hitter for the next few years (even if he must move to DH at some point) and only 2018 should be a wasted season per se. And while I think the mentorship role is important, I also think having him a key member of the team is important towards recruiting high-end free agents next offseason. There is a lot of value in keeping Abreu around and I’m ok paying a slight premium in AAV if he’ll agee to a reasonable contract length.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 10:07 PM) It was a Florial or Andjuar away from being a fine deal. For the first time, Hahn sacrificed talent to dump salary. Frazier had no value and Robertson had little surplus value. Both turned out well for Yankees who did very well in that trade. Yeah, I just think Clarkin was a pretty weak second piece. I know he was a pretty high pick a few years back, but I’m really not optimistic about him staying healthy or ever amounting to much of anything. We should have been able to do better IMO. I think it’s pretty clear that our front office felt it was better to use all their secondary pieces to land that one last blue chipper in Rutherford than moving guys piecemeal & bringing in a couple second tier prospects.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 09:35 PM) Yes, I read your post. I wouldn't have replied to it if I hadn't read it. I agree with Badger; I don't really care what you do in the confines of your own home. In fact, my wife is of the opinion that she might like a gun for home protection. However, no matter the precautions, statistics do not seem to justify the risk. Not many insurance policies accidentally kill your children, or your childrens' friends. First, let me state that I’m only talking about in the confines of your own home. I’m strongly against people being allowed to carry guns around with them in public. Having said that, I guess I don’t agree with those statistics. Suicides & murders reflect more upon the mental state of the person pulling the trigger than the dangers of gun ownership itself. Strip those (which I don’t think should be included) and the numbers greatly change. Now go buy a biometric safe and you can basically mitigate almost all risk. IMO, if you take the necessary precautions and are responsible (which some people aren’t admittedly), guns provide almost no risk to your family.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 09:04 PM) Because people regularly break into their home? Come on. Did you read my post? I said owning a gun for self defense is like having an insurance policy you hopefully never have to use. It’s not about expecting for your house to be broken into, it’s being prepared in the unlikely event it occurs. If I lived in an area with high crime rates I’d seriously consider having a gun at home in a locked safe. And I know people who have or do live in those types of areas and I see nothing wrong with them having a gun in their house if that makes them feel safe at night. Have you ever had your house broken into? Would you prefer to have a gun or not in such a situation? This is not addressed at you, but it seems that people who have limited experience handling firearms greatly exaggerate their inherent danger. A gun is only as dangerous as the person behind the trigger. Again, I’m all for greater gun ownership restrictions as they are desperately needed, but citing a bunch of examples of gun violence involving dumb, mentally-ill, or violent people makes them sound much more dangerous than they really are. Responsible & safe gun ownership is real thing that millions of Americans are able to achieve on a daily basis. I guess I don’t get why anyone has the right to tell these people they can’t own a normal gun for their own protection.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 08:45 PM) In 2012, there were 20,666 suicides involving guns, 8,342 homicides involving guns, 548 accidental shooting deaths, and 259 justifiable homicides defending the home. It appears that not having a gun around would be safer. So this was the response I was waiting for. How many of those incidents involved non-responsible gun owners, people with mental illnesses, or people with violent/criminal backgrounds? Yes, certain people shouldn’t be allowed to own guns. I have said this multiple times now. But how does RockRaines owning a gun and keeping it in a safe that only he can access put his family at greater risk? If responsible, owning a gun for self defense is nothing more than an insurance policy that you will hopefully never have to use. Where I live I don’t feel one is needed, but I know plenty of people who live in areas where having a gun for home defense becomes a legitimate consideration.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 08:08 PM) And if "self defense" is actually a claim disproven by data, which it consistently is, then the fact that you included that is nothing but an appeal to how good it makes you feel. It's literally "I won't listen to anything else because this makes me feel powerful". You know what else makes people feel powerful? Owning an AR-15 or AK knockoff. Hence the douchy insult, which unfortunately is totally deserved. I'm going to protect my family by holding this lit stick of dynamite. No one will attack us then. And I can't foresee any issues with that. Until we challenge that mindset, the willingness to look the other way because you feel better, we will not do anything about this. Because the AR-15 is the ultimate expression of that. I have no idea what data you’re referring to or what point you’re trying to make. I own guns for hunting/sport (which I rarely use anymore) but keep none in my house so your theory that guns make me feel a certain way is odd. I’m simply speaking on behalf of people who feel they need a gun in their house for safety. Also, I have already said a normal gun was more than enough to function for home defense and assault weapons most certainly should be banned. So let me ask you this, are you suggesting that owning a gun for home defense is more dangerous than not owning a gun? If so, I’d love to hear more about this data you’re referring to, because I’m struggling to grasp how responsible gun ownership within one’s household would somehow decrease their safety.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 07:17 PM) Handguns are responsible for a vast majority of gun injuries and deaths in this country. In the grand scheme of things, assault rifles really aren't the number one problem. Of course they are and there should be better policies in place to prevent certain people from acquiring/owning handguns, but this is a thread on mass shootings and assault weapons w/ high capacity clips seem more relevant there and a much easier issue to tackle quite frankly.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 06:30 PM) In both cases it is people who should not have access to guns but do. The connection is not tough. These are both people who are assumed to be responsible gun owners and they are ok doing so until someone ends up dead. We should not have to put up with either of these things, but in both cases the giant unlocked penis enlarger is more important. Nope, your tangent was ridiculous and you’re overlooking both the intent (murder vs. accident) and the type of weapons used (handguns vs. assault rifles w/ high capacity clips) in these incidents. And then you go and show your true douchey colors by calling guns a “giant unlocked penis enlarger”. There is absolutely nothing wrong with owning a normal gun for self defense, hunting, or sport. Nothing whatsoever. But people like you who think they know what’s right for everyone in this world will continue to tell us otherwise and we’ll never make progress in this area. Really sucks being a liberal and seeing your party of choice completely lose its power because the Brian Balta’s of the world scare off the more moderate base. Honestly, you’re equally as bad as the right-wing extremists.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 03:24 PM) Sen. Feinstein and Senate Democrats introduce bill to ban assault weapons via I only wish this proposed bill would lead to actual changes, but I just don’t see that ever happening with the Republicans in control.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 03:17 PM) On average a kid age 3 or under accidentally shoots someone at least once a week in this country, more than half the time themselves. So imagine it. That's how responsible we are. Good god Balta, are you really trying to make a connection between the execution-style murder of children to accidental shootings that are the result of dumb parents not keeping their guns in secure spaces? Again, people like you are the reason we can’t make any progress with gun controls.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 7, 2017 -> 11:25 PM) Do you really think racism is the problem in every scenario (even the ones that don't involve race. Disaster relief, second amendment, etc.)? I can't tell you're just trying to shut down reasonable discourse, let everyone know you know you think racism is bad or you actually believe every non-white is being constantly subjected to racism on account of them not being white. I am not even sure what the argument is for people who believe civilians should have the right to possess semi-automatic/automatic weapons. I always thought it was hunting related (not something I know anything about) but I was listening to a couple of hunters talk and apparently they are terrible for hunting. They just blow a hole in whatever they hit and use of them typically falls outside the spirit of hunting. The vaild argument was that their legality was necessary for citizens to defend themselves if faced with tyranny. Considering our government can drone bomb anybody they want on demand the only pro I could think of is null and void. It’s really assault weapons & high capacity clips that are the problem. No one needs these unless they’re part of our Armed Forces, are part of a SWAT-like team, or plan on killing a lot of people in a short period of time. Sure, there are plenty of people out there that think owning an assault rifle is badass or have convinced themselves they are defenseless at home without one, but the reality these where never intended for practical civilian use. There’s absolutely no reason NOT to ban assault weapons & high capacity magazines. Shotguns, handguns, & hunting rifles should be more than enough for sport & safety.