Chicago White Sox

If putting ads on the outfield walls leads to more revenue I'm all for it.

Let's also remember the Sox almost always find some money at the deadline if they're competitive. So yes, the team may start any given season at its budgeted payroll, but when things go well and there is more money at the gates, the organization puts some of that money back into the team. The rest most likely goes towards future payroll or other operating expenses. I seriously doubt this profit is being given out to the owners in the form of dividends.

Also, the Sox's opening day payroll is going to be about $20 million higher than last year and Hahn has indicated they still have a little money to play with. It seems to me that the organization is reinvesting its higher earning power back into the team.

Again, that's operating income, not net income. Regardless, what is your point? They can raise payroll by $20 million? I still don't see how we're a "sleeping giant".

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 04:02 PM) Not worried, just curious what the thought process is, on how they decide these things. Since they can use minor leaguers in games anyway, and there are players who already know they won't make it barring injury... why the theater? Why bother announcing reassignments at all? Maybe it's tied to their minor league contracts? Perhaps these guys have opt-outs if they're reassigned to minor league camp? If so, I could see holding on to them until the end of camp, even if it's unlikely they'd turn down their minor league assignments.

I disagree with those who say Wrigleyville would be fine without the Cubs. First, all the rooftops would obviously have to close. Second, a good chunk of the bars on Clark Street would have to shut down as well. Most of them rely on income during baseball season to survive throughout the year. A few bars would survive of course, but Wrigleyville would have a hot mess on its hands.

Zach Zaidman is still reporting there is a chance Rose plays tonight. Whoops, never mind. Looks like he hasn't seen the update.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 18, 2013 -> 05:17 PM) Please put me on ignore. Thanks in advance. You're probably perfectly enjoyable in person, but my god reading your some of your long-winded posts arguing the dumbest of points simply for the sake of arguing makes me feel like I'm having a brain aneurysm. I will not put someone intelligent on ignore, but please try to keep your points short and focused.

I think if there's one takeaway from this thread, it's that Soxbadger is without question the most annoying human being in the world.

I totally think our system is underrated. Look at Trayce Thompson for example. He put up a .809 OPS across three levels last year as a 21 year old, while playing an above average CF. Those who followed him closely know he showed tremendous improvement with the bat in the 2nd half of his stint Winston-Salem, which then carried over to his stay at Birmingham (.899 OPS in AA). Overall, he had a great year in terms of development, despite being promoted aggressively through the system. However, I haven't seen one site give him consideration for top 100 prospect status. Unfortunately for him, until the Sox can successfully develop one of our raw, toolsy OF prospects, guys like Thompson will not receive the benefit of the doubt in these type of rankings. It seems like Hawkins is the lone exception to the rule and that's because he did so well right out of the gate and had such a high draft pedigree. Hopefully Thompson, Mitchell, & Walker can change that this year.

QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 06:02 PM) Why worry about them even then? I worry about one team - the White Sox. As a baseball fan, I would respect the Cubs organization if this plan they're trying to produce actually works over time. Until then, there are no guarantees it will work. The only reason to worry about the Cubs is we compete in the same market as them. If they suck for an extended period of time, there will be more casual fans willing contribute their money to our cause. If the opposite happens, then there will be less money to work with. IMO, this is simply a financial concern. But I agree with you, we should worry about the White Sox first and forement. And if you're going to worry about another team it should be the Tigers, since they're going be our main competitors for the next few years.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 05:01 PM) Preach on. Honestly I have no why Sox fans are spending time panicking about what the Cubs are going to do.. IN 2015!?! Especially when the CBA changes tied cement shoes to their rebuilding efforts. That's exactly how I feel. I'll start worrying about the Cubs if and when all these prospects turn into quality major leaguers. Until then, they're all unknowns just like any other team's prospects.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 05:11 PM) I hope the Sox found a reliable starter in Quintana too. I'm cautious because of his 2nd half performance and that the Yankees released him (a 22 y.o. left-hander.) Even Cashman seems to think it was a poor decision. Also, take a look at Quintana's numbers as a 22 year in high A with the Yankees affiliate and they were pretty good. Seems like he kind of had his breakout season at the wrong time for them and the Yankees made their decision to let him go based on pure stuff and not on what his limited history as a starter suggested he might be.

QUOTE (southside_hitman @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 01:33 PM) At some point the Theo Epstein strategy might be the best course to take - bring up minor league players, tank the season and get some high Draft picks. I hate to see that happen but I reluctantly admit that it has worked for the Cubs in amassing a pool of talented young players, some of whom have star potential. At some point it may be time to throw in the towel for 2013 and 2014 in order to become competitive in the future. The Sox have to find a way to get better against Division foes like Detroit and also to compete in this town for market share against the Cubs organization who is focused on the future like a laser. I'm so f***ing sick of this blind love for Theo Epstein and all things Cubs around here. Epstein's rebuilding process (i.e. purposely losing games) has done very little for the Cubs system. The Cubs #1 & #5 top prospects were both Jim Hendry draft picks, as is the majority of their system. Their #3 prospect was bought for $30 million, and unfortunately for them, the new CBA will not allow them to buy prospects like that anymore. Their #4 prospect was acquired in a trade, which was indirectly the result of another botched trade with Atlanta. That leaves their #2 prospect, who was the result of a high draft pick. This a prospect years away from contributing and even he was outperformed by the HS outfielder we were able to select later in the 1st round The point isn't that Epstein hasn't done things to help the Cubs. It's just that going the full rebuilding route hasn't had much impact yet. People need to stop pretending that Epstein is a miracle worker and realize what he is. A very smart, business savy leader who was able to leverage certain draft loopholes and financial advantages to give the Red Sox an edge. He's going to have to reinvent himself, because the new CBA isn't doing him any favors. I'm not saying that's not possible, but let's put away the jump to conclusions mats and not award the Cubs the 2016 World Series trophy just yet.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 10:36 AM) I'm clicking on the 2013-18 payroll obligation link from the Sox page. That's where it shows Danks at $15.75M. It's updated because it shows Sale's numbers. I can't find that, but either way that's because of a signing bonus ($7.5 million) that was paid in 2012 and represented 2012 salary (it was simply deferred a few months). It should not be included in the 2013 to 2016 salary figures.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 17, 2013 -> 10:13 AM) It wasn't my spreadsheet that I posted Danks salary from, it was from Baseball Prospectus Cot's Baseball Contracts. Baseball Reference has a different number for Danks. You tell me which one is right. They both show $14.25 million a year from 2013 to 2016. That's $57 million remaining. What am I missing here?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 15, 2013 -> 08:53 PM) So, winning the division in a 1 game playoff? Yup, against the Tigers. Just feel like it's going to be one of those years where a bunch of crazy s*** happens.

I think it will be a tight race, but I have us winning the division at 90-73.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 15, 2013 -> 07:50 PM) It's an argument you kind of agreed with by saying Boston would have taken on his contract, but probably not give much in return. Right now, coming off the season he had offensively, I don't think they'd give up much for him. However, that doesn't mean Boston wouldn't give us a low level pitching prospect or two for him and assume his entire contract. Buying low and assuming some financial risk if often a smart move. KW did it multiple and more often than not it worked out well. Let's just say this, if Alexei gets back to where he was from 2009 to 2011 a lot of teams will wish they made a play for him, although I doubt the Sox have any interest in moving him given how valuable his defense is to our pitching staff.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 15, 2013 -> 07:42 PM) We view where the Sox are at differently. I don't think they're a contender so I'd rather not be locked in to a 30+ y.o. shortstop for $27M who may be in decline. That's fine, but you're arguing he has no value across the league. That is what everyone is getting worked up about.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 15, 2013 -> 06:53 PM) If Drew and Ramirez both continue to decline would you rather be obligated to pay Ramirez $20M over 2014 and 2015 or Drew $0 over the same time frame? Ramirez is still a top-notch defensive player, yet you continue to act like he's not. I get the concern about having too many low OBP batters in our lineup, but that doesn't mean that Ramirez doesn't have value as a plus defensive player.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 15, 2013 -> 04:49 PM) Just for fun, do you think there was a team this offseason who would have taken that contract? I don't think there was. Without question I think the Red Sox would have taken him off our hands. I'm not saying the White Sox would get anything in return, but I'm sure they could dump the contract if they wanted to.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 15, 2013 -> 04:14 PM) If Sox management were to decide that, Ramirez has a tradeable contract. If he gets his OPS in the low .700 range, he's tradable without any problems. If he repeats his 2012 offensive performance, then he'll be more difficult to move, but I think there would still be one team that would take him off your hands for free. I'm pretty confident he'll rebound, so I'm not really worried. Also I mentioned this week ago, but Stephen Drew just got $9.5 million coming off a zero WAR season. There are always teams that need SSs and are will to overpay in terms of money or talent to get one. Unless Alexei's defense suddenly disappears, he'll always have some value.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 15, 2013 -> 07:34 AM) Im pissed at the lack of games for sure, but I never will count Nintendo out. For all of the talk about the superiority of Xbox and PS3, the Wii dominated the last console generation in sales. Mario(Solo and Kart) are coming out within the next few months, the HD Windwaker is coming out in August, Pikmin 3(which Miyamoto said should have been a launch game) comes out in May. And another game I have been waiting for is also coming out in May, Wonderful 101. IGN just gave Lego City Undercover an 8.0. There is a lot of things that Nintendo just doesnt care about, there is no doubt about it. They just do things the way they want to do them and say f*** it. Right now, the new 3D Mario platformer and Mario Kart game will make or break them IMO. They can't just be rehashes like 2D Mario sequels become. They need new and unique features that blow people away, sort of like Mario Galaxy did when it first came out. The problem is that those games probably won't come out until the fall or holidays. At that point the Xbox 720 & PS4 will be right around the corner and you'll have a hard time convincing people to buy a Wii U. They need some big games soon and I just don't see them. The games you mentioned may all be solid, but I don't expect any of them to big sellers or move systems. Hopefully they have surprises at E3, because god only knows that all their studios are working on. Retro Studios in particular better have a big announcement.

Anyone else think the Wii U is doomed? I just can't believe how much Nintendo has botched this console. You think Nintendo would have learned their lesson from the 3DS launch, but there have literally been no games worth purchasing since launch. There is still no killer app that demonstrates what the system is truly capable of (Nintendoland doesn't count IMO). Plus they don't even have the virtual console up yet to keep people until some good games out. What's going to happen when two truly next-gen systems come out later year? Nintendo needed to build a large ussr base beforehand, but without any big games on the horizon, they're going to be in big trouble come Christmas. People aren't buying the console for Pikman. Without Mario, Metriod, & Zelda games soon, this is going to go under, especially with 3rd party support lacking once again. I've been a huge Nintendo fan my whole life, but they proven with Wii U that they're never going to change. Key modern day features like online play and easy backup/transfer of digital purchases lack behind their competitors. I mean for f***'s sake, they're still stressing local multiplayer, which may be great for families but few other people care. I tried playing Super Mario Wii U with my wife when I first got the console and you can't even use the Gamepad with two people, you both have to use Wiimotes because the Gamepad is reserved for a player who wants to build platforms for the others. To drop $400 on a system and games and not be able to use the main selling point for normal gameplay is just f***ing stupid. Nintendo just doesn't get it.