Thad Bosley

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 12:58 PM) Which is precisely why I think it is a bluff from the Cubs to get more money from Comcast or Fox. What type of programming will the Cubs have in the winter on their network, reruns of old games? You can only show so many greatest games before they lose their appeal. Unless they go out and purchase the rights to the Blackhawks to supplement their programming they just wont have enough pull to get the type of advertising money they would need to be successful. The Yankees manage to do it in New York with their "YES" network, but the difference is, of course, that they can reach back in their rich, successful history and actually have an inventory of games worth watching again. The same cannot be said of the North Siders. They'd have to run that 23-22 game against the Phillies from back in the 70s at least 50 times a week!

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 8, 2016 -> 04:01 PM) When you're hoping for 7 pretty important players to rebound...you aren't a very good team. I think the concern is that the team that came dead last in offense last year is still below average offensively in nearly half the spots in the lineup (Garcia, LaRoche, Saladino, and Cabrera), at least as the roster is presently constituted. That and the corner outfield defense are particularly troublesome going into this season at the moment.

QUOTE (Doc Edwards Shot @ Feb 8, 2016 -> 10:53 AM) There has been a lot of conversation over the years about the time in the 1980s when Jerry was threatening to move the Sox to Tampa if he didn't get the city and state of IL to pay the bulk of the cost of the construction of "new" Comiskey Park (now U.S. Cellular Field). If this were to ever happen again and the Sox actually moved like the St. Louis Rams are currently doing, what would you do? Would you continue to follow the Sox remotely via a new TV premium package? Would you switch to some other team? Would you do the unthinkable and start following the Cubs since they would be the lone remaining team in the city? I don't know what I would do other than take a little time off from baseball to think about it - kind of like a grieving widower who would need some time before starting to date again. Welcome to the reality that was being a White Sox fan circa 1986-1988, when pondering answers to these questions was all too real. Jerry Reinsdorf obviously had no trouble dragging the fan base through that torment while casting a black cloud over the franchise during that time period. But it was a means to an end for he and the investors, because it made them ultimately very wealthy in the end. It didn't, however, translate into turning the franchise into a sustainably winning one for the fans, which, therein lies the problem. Time for a new owner.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 7, 2016 -> 11:01 PM) From the Tribune at Soxfest. All the quotes you pin on Hahn seem to be figment of your imagination. Hahn said he is in constant contact with Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf about the flexibility remaining in the club's budget and acknowledged he needs to be creative in structuring potential contracts to fit within the constraints. LMAO! Oh Dick, sometimes I think YOU'RE a figment of my imagination, because I can't believe how many times you jump into a conversation and completely take it off topic just for the sake of taking the opportunity to throw one of your uninteresting insults into the mix. But that's ok, you're having fun, I guess, but now let's see if we can't reel you back into what we were actually talking about before you entered the fray. If you'll notice, Dick, the topic of this thread has to do with the potential acquisition of one Dexter Fowler by the White Sox. Two regular posters here seem to think that perhaps an obstacle to acquiring Mr. Fowler's services are current budget constraints that may be in place. I happen to think that's not the case, based on "actual words" said by the General Manager at Soxfest. Actual words, Dick, not one's imagined. Quoth Mr. Hahn: “Let me make something really clear: There is absolutely no hardline, dogma, limit on contract terms with free agents. The reason we didn’t sign any of the hitters that thus far have signed elsewhere at the end of the day is not about contract term limitations. We had numerous conversations, with various parameters, various structures, right up until the day or the day before these players wound up choosing their ultimate destinations.” Now, what I took from that statement is that Mr. Hahn was insisting we were making competitive offers to those available premium free agents at that point in time. And my point is, any competitive offer we would have made for any of the big FA outfielders would be much larger than anything we would remotely offer Fowler. So if the Sox were able to make said offers to the Cespedes, Gordon, and perhaps Upton, then obviously the team isn't operating under these alleged budget constraints, as "rumored", or else they wouldn't have made those offers. Thus, we may be negotiating with Fowler for a deal that the team seems to believe is more reflective of the guy's actual market value, but not because the cupboard is bare and we're down to our last pennies.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Feb 7, 2016 -> 04:48 PM) Agreed. The budget was the main point I was addressing in the "2016 payroll " thread. It was rumored early in the off season that Hahn had 2015's budget to work with and the main reason why I felt the Sox wouldn't sign one of the big four. Plus, Hahn had said a few times that the team would need to get "creative " to make it work and that's probably why they were shopping LaRoche. The FO never said they were raising the payroll so I never assumed they would sign a big FA. Just didn't want to get my hopes up too high and suffer a huge let down. With Houston have so many outfielders, I'm hoping the Sox kick the tires on Andrew Aplin. LHB, OF, high OBP potential and solid defense. I dont know what the cost would be but Houston doesnt need him so maybe he could be had for a reasonabke price in a trade. Rather try that route than sign one of Victorino, DeJesus, Joyce, Venable etc. Was Rick Hahn lying at Soxfest when he said there were no financial or contractual restraints when they were negotiating with the big FAs, right up until the day those players signed with the teams that they did? Because whatever "budget constraints" you and SS2K5 imagine are in place today would have been place a few weeks ago when those players all upped up the way they did. To listen to you and SS2K5 go on and on about these alleged budget constraints that, unless you are an employee of the White Sox Finance dept., you would have zero way of knowing, is ridiculous. Unless you're suggesting Hahn is a bold-faced liar, you can probably put all of this budget nonsense to rest, once and for all.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2016 -> 02:52 PM) Hmm, I wonder what that constraint could be... It doesn't exist.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2016 -> 02:51 PM) So in talking about him, you weren't talking about him. That makes perfect sense that you weren't talking about him. Lol - ok, SS2K5, whatever. You are obviously in the mood to share some throw-away comments today, so have at it. Enjoy yourself!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2016 -> 11:59 AM) It is obvious to me that the team is up against the wall in terms of budget, which is what is holding them up. Well, this cannot even be remotely true. If there is some sort of budget constraint preventing us from being able to meet whatever Fowler's demands are at the moment, how in the world could we have even been remotely competitive for Cespedes, Gordon, and Upton, which Hahn assured us all last week the team was up until the times those players signed with the teams that they did. A bit of a disconnect there to say the least. Unless someone actually has access to the financial records of the Chicago White Sox, speculating on their budget and/or available resources seems to be a fool's errand.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2016 -> 11:57 AM) Um, you did... in your very previous post. I made a reference to him, yes, but we were talking about the upper deck, which my reference was relevant to. Big difference.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Feb 7, 2016 -> 09:34 AM) Takes two to tango. While the Sox are likely to be looking for a potential bargain, these free agents are likely waiting for the best offer to emerge due to the small amount of teams interested in them. Can't force a FA to sign if they are playing the waiting game in search of the best offer they can get. True - see Cespedes, Upton, and Gordon.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 6, 2016 -> 03:34 PM) After reading this post, I think the vast majority would think your obsession with Jerry Reinsdorf is very unhealthy. LMAO! Who's talking about Reinsdorf? I thought we were talking about the USCF upper deck, whose construction you tried to somehow pass off as "standard"? If you have nothing else to say on the matter, then just don't say anything. It's really that easy. As for Mr. Reinsdorf, since you brought him up yet again, the only thing "unhealthy" is the effect he's had on the White Sox organization throughout his tenure as owner. You know it, I know it. As the Cubs benefitted by getting out from under the long term yet highly ineffective ownership of the Tribune Co. a few years ago, so will the White Sox come the post-Reinsdorf era, whenever that is.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 6, 2016 -> 08:45 AM) The miserable upper deck is standard at every park built the last 25 years. Wrong again. Quite wrong, actually. Name one other stadium that is as architecturally flawed as was the new Comiskey Park where they built an upper deck with the same obnoxious incline AND complicated matters by putting the opening to that deck down at the base, vs. somewhere in the middle. Talk about discrimination. One might infer they didn't want any elderly and/or obese people sitting in the upper rows given how difficult it would be to get up there, and never mind any up and down trips needed to go the bathroom, etc. Reinsdorf admits he screwed up big time on that upper deck, which would explain why he ended up lopping off about nine rows back in the early 2000s. Has that been standard, too, Dick Allen? Has any other team gone in and taken a buzz saw to their upper deck and literally taken out a third of it? No? Yeah, didn't think so. Hence, the rather wrong nature of you claiming the new Comiskey/USCF upper deck is somewhat par for the course.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 5, 2016 -> 11:14 PM) LMAO. LMAO. Out of bullets again, eh? Well that didn't take long. Dick Allen?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 5, 2016 -> 09:56 PM) Then you let him leave. He even said the Governor told him to get a new city so he could use it as leverage. The White Sox, like every other company, try to get what they can from the state and the city. They have an entity that creates revenue for the city and state.The question would be has the state made their money back with this deal. What has the tax on sales at the ballpark, team employees, even visiting players added up to over the years? How many are employed paying taxes instead of unemployed collecting welfare? The state is probably still in the red I would guess. I am totally against publicly funded stadiums, but if a team can get one, they aren't the bad guy. do you resent Boeing for the sweetheart deal they received to move their headquarters , even though not many jobs to Chicago? Do you resent the Bears who basically doubled their franchise value with a Soldier Field rehab that is using the same tax the White Sox stadium uses? If you held getting a deal from the state or city against companies, you would have a lot of conflict every time you went out to eat, or buy some clothes, or put gas in your tank. Reinsdorf did what any competent business leader would do. He got his sweetheart deal both with the stadium and the lease, and then he even got the lease renewed. I don't think anyone is questioning Reinsdorf's "competence" as a business leader. His hardcore tactics we've discussed in his threats and blackmail to move the team away from Chicago if the state didn't put in place an agreement that guaranteed he and his investors extraordinary wealth is evidence of that. He is still a bad guy. A very bad guy, as it relates to being the owner of this team we love. The fact he had the audacity to approach the Illinois legislature and pull them away from the important jobs we elect them to do to work on putting together a deal whose only goal was to make he and his owners rich beyond their wildest dreams was purely disgraceful. Don't you think all of the revenue raised through this deal to make Jerry Reinsdorf a very rich man could have been better spent elsewhere for the greater good of the state? No, make all of the excuses you want for this guy, but he has been bad for the White Sox brand since the day he arrived on our doorstep in 1981. Very much looking forward to the next ownership group.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 5, 2016 -> 09:29 PM) But why would Jerry Reinsdorf be the bad guy? Wouldn't the elected officials that are supposed to have your best interests in mind be the one's at fault? It isn't a good deal for the taxpayers. The argument is it is a hotel tax so out of towers are really picking up the tab, but still it is money that could be used elsewhere. they were able to make renovations at no cost to the taxpayers other than those pissed off about a name change. LMAO! Why would your apparent hero Jerry Reinsdorf be the "bad guy" in this situation? Ooooohhhhhh, I dunno. The threats to move to Tampa if all of his greedy demands weren't met is the first thing that leaps to mind. I don't suppose you could consider Uncle Jer & his shameful co-owners AND the elected officials to all be the bad guys in what went down when this deal was made. Seems pretty obvious that all the major players failed either Sox fans, taxpayers, or both, don't you think?

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Feb 5, 2016 -> 05:54 PM) For sure, the timing was poor and it's hard to knock Chicago for going with a rather bland design when at that point it's just what you did. At least they kept the park in the City and didn't move it to the burbs. I don't know much about the history of it, was only a young kid when the Cell opened, was there talk of moving out of the south side? Oh, there sure was. There sure was, the last time being back in the mid-to-late 80s. That was when our current esteemed owner Jerry Reinsdorf, fresh off of the failure of his first get-rich scheme with the SportsVision debacle, turned his greedy attention to the taxpayers of Illinois. He and his co-owners engaged in a highly public and shameful exercise where they literally blackmailed the state into publicly funding the construction of a new stadium for them, one designed to generate revenues the likes of which they could have never seen at the old ballpark. The blackmail came in the form of threats to move our White Sox to Tampa if the state did not only agree to fund the ballpark construction, but also throw in a sweetheart lease deal on top of it to boot. And if not for some last minute, 11th hour efforts in June of 1988 by former Gov. Jim Thompson to convince some legislators to cave into Jerry and his goons, the blackmail would have prevailed and our White Sox would be playing in Tropicana Field today as we speak. Jerry Reinsdorf - what a guy, eh? He's sure done a mighty fine job of getting a huge return on his investment in the Sox over these past 35 years. Too bad the White Sox faithful can't say the same.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 04:03 PM) LMAO. More quality.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 02:50 PM) How many people sit in the upper deck? You aren't saying there would be thousands upon thousands more up there so they could look at the buildings are you? And it would be a spectacular cost to move the openings of the upper deck higher about 20 feet. To make it make any sense, you would also have to move the entire concourse. White Sox baseball would be so much more enjoyable if you owned the team. Please do us all a favor and buy them and show everyone how a real team is run. You are just flat out insulting and rude. I simply shared an experience I had listening to Jerry Reinsdorf talk about the construction of the ballpark and then a couple of follow-up questions I had with him, and then you come along and troll with this typical blithering nonsense of yours. If your intention is to add ZERO to the quality of the discourse around here, you are routinely quite successful in the endeavor.

I met Mr. Reinsdorf once back in the late 90s, in one of the many playoff-less Octobers we've experienced during his time as owner. It was a seasons ticket holder gathering in the Bullpen Sports Bar. He was talking about the construct of the then-new Comiskey Park, and he told the crowd gathered that his only regret in the construction of the park was building the opening of the upper deck at the base of the deck, vs. somewhere in the middle. I don't think anyone could argue with that, of course, as that was clearly a serious architectural flaw given the steepness and height of the original upper deck. When I had the chance to talk to him, I asked him if he felt that way, why not just close the openings of the base and build out openings in the middle. He said "no, that would cost millions of dollars to do", and so I was, like, ok. I also asked him why he didn't build the park in the direction of the skyline. That park in it's location is just off the city enough that the view of the skyline is just perfect. I think we've all seen it at one time or another walking down the ramp that faces the skyline when leaving the park. I've often maintained that the original upper deck might not have been maligned to the degree it was back in the '90s because the view of the city would have been fantastic from almost every seat up there. Reinsdorf's reason for not building the park in that direction had something to do with the direction of the sun on the field preventing them from doing so. And to this day that explanation has never made any sense, because building the park in that direction would have essentially been in the same direction Comiskey Park had faced for 80 years, and that seemed to work out fine. I'll always look at that decision as such a missed opportunity for this organization.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 08:10 AM) There is zero chance of that. The White Sox have no where near the resources to pull that off. LOL - yeah, that shoe string budget that poor, 'ol Uncle Jer operates under. How he manages to make ends meet continues to impress!

QUOTE (Pants Rowland @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 05:51 PM) I like this post. I just hope the defense is improved enough to support the strength of the pitching staff. The left side of the infield should be solid with Frazier and Saladino (provided he's the starting SS when all is said and done). The rest of the defense is iffy at best, and in a couple of spots, horrendous.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 10:22 AM) Not too much differently than Cespedes, and you seemed to have a big problem with the Sox not offering Cespedes whatever it took, which would have been not younger and not cost controlled. Well yes, I wasn't asking what I wanted, which was Cespedes, a premium talent for a premium need on our club. I was simply asking about a previously stated priority about obtaining younger, cost-controlled guys, of which Ethier is anything but. However, a few other posters pointed out the Frazier and Lawrie acquisitions which fit that bill, so I'm good for now, Dick. But I will be back!! You can count on that!!

Whatever happened to the "we are going to add younger, more cost controlled players to the roster" plan? How does an Andre Ethier square up with that vision?

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Feb 1, 2016 -> 02:12 PM) http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/whit...ter-fowler.html If there was an award given this offseason for just "looking" at a free agent outfielder, we would have taken home the gold weeks ago.

After weeks and weeks of talking about the possibility of signing either Cespedes, Gordon, or Upton, and now this discussion going back and forth about Fowler, Desmond or Jackson, it's like going from the main GOP debate listening to Trump, Cruz and Rubio to the undercard debate between Huckabee, Santorum and Fiorina. Very underwhelming!!