Thad Bosley

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 31, 2016 -> 08:13 AM) Just calling him out for his previous comments which contradict his latest comments. Since you are here to offer advice, why don't you take your own? Stop being a wise guy. It's neither cute nor funny. Pointing out an inconsistency in someone's arguments is one thing. To do so in your incessant condescending style is quite another.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 31, 2016 -> 06:57 AM) Haven't you mentioned the White Sox have a 2 year window? What kind of help would the 28th pick be halfway through one of those 2 years? Your arguments constantly contradict themselves depending on the latest White Sox rumor. Is there any particular reason you feel the need, or even worse, the authority, to be so mean and hostile to this guy all of the time? Get off of his case already! Leave him alone and let him post whatever he wants. If you don't care for his views, then just block him. That's what the block function is for.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jan 30, 2016 -> 11:18 AM) And they have given out plenty of contracts longer than 3 years. Yet they are one of only three teams now (Indians and Pirates being the others) who haven't given out a contract for more than $70M. If the contract is not team friendly (see Sale, Abreu, Eaton, Quintana) or one where the market came to them (which is the game they were playing with Cespedes, Upton, & Gordon and lost), then they're not interested, at least as it relates to premium talent.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 29, 2016 -> 03:47 PM) Scot Gregor ‏@scotgregor now Citing Abreu's 6-year deal and 4 years for Robertson, Hahn denies #WhiteSox were only willing to go 3 for Gordon, Cespedes or Upton Rather easy to deny now, isn't it. Credible sources were reporting otherwise at the time it mattered, and now we have none of the three. I'm not interested in the offers that brought in the aforementioned players. I'm interested in how competitive we actually were in trying to acquire the premium talent that we really could have used which was available on the market this winter.

QUOTE (captain54 @ Jan 29, 2016 -> 12:16 PM) Was talking to some Angels fans…. the FO starts the season, and the fans come to expect nothing less than at least a playoff spot every year, a chance to compete for a World Series in October.... the mindset is that anything less than that and the season is a failure.. Here in Chicago, Sox fans are pleased that. "at least we are better than last year" Pretty sad that our standards are so low.. Depends on which Sox fans you talk to. "At least we are better than last year" certainly doesn't cut it for me, and seemingly for the majority of the fans who frequent this board. Unfortunately the track record for the organization is so poor that the fan base has been conditioned not to expect much. When your team has only made it to the postseason 5 times over a 55 year period, how in the world could you expect the fans to have the mindset that "anything less than earning a playoff spot is a failure"? I want the team's performance to improve to the point that we are all operating under that kind of mindset. But we'll only get there once this team starts setting a precedent with some sustainable winning. That's what this organization so sorely needs to get this fan base invigorated and interested in the product.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Jan 28, 2016 -> 10:54 PM) I agree with RV and have no problem with what he said. Frazier is a huge upgrade at 3B, Lawrie's bat is a sizeable upgrade at 2B with nice power potential and Avila/Navarro are sizeable upgrades at catcher. 3B and Catcher got better defensively and while I don't expect Lawrie to be as slick as Sanchez with the glove at 2B but Lawrie's arm is a big upgrade to that position. Saladino should be a defensive upgrade at SS so the infield overall should much improved defensively and in the batting lineup as well. All I'm saying is that the Sox look much better now than they did at seasons end. Unless of course fans prefered to go with revolving doors at 3B and 2B with Flowers at catcher and an aging/declining Alexei at SS. Which shows you just how bad we were at season's end, because we are still below average at four of nine positions in the potential starting line-up with Garcia, Cabrera, LaRoche and Salidino in starting positions.

QUOTE (klaus kinski @ Jan 28, 2016 -> 09:54 PM) There is so little interest in this team. In the media we are the Wolves to the north side Blackhawks. And I think many fans are tired of this ownership, it's stale ideas. The manager should have been changed not make comments about free agents. No one wants to come here and play in a cold empty park Except for pitchers, our best acquisitions have come from Cuba. What does that tell you? ...and it's abysmal record of achievement. Therein lies the problem.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Jan 27, 2016 -> 07:11 PM) Fowler is not worth what becomes a late first round draft pick. If we sign him and lose the pic then keeping the Shark and offering him arbitration was just a waste of time. We should of just traded him at the deadline and picked up prospects. Its one thing to lose this pic for an Upton or Gordon. Its another thing to lose it for 2nd and 3rd tier guys. Completely agree. And what's with Hahn's predisposition for acquiring below average defensive players? Garcia, Cabrera, Gillespie, and now considering Fowler? What is that the Hawk always says, "The first rule in baseball is to catch the baseball"? He's right about that. I don't think what Fowler brings to the game offensively is worth putting yet again another sub-par glove in the outfield.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jan 24, 2016 -> 08:22 PM) So would you have paid Cespedes $30 million this year? Because that's the minimum it would have taken to pry him away from the Mets. And I'm still not sure that would have been enough. Would I pay him $30M a year? No, but only because I didn't win that PowerBall from a couple of weeks ago; otherwise, I might have been tempted!! Would I be ok with Jerry Reinsdorf digging into his coffeiurs and outbidding the Mets of all teams, who are in far greater financial dire straits than the Sox, for the services of Cespedes? Oh, you betcha! You betcha. We currently have a modest payroll at best, so bringing in Cespedes would not have broken the bank. Meanwhile, Cespedes would have put us in a far greater position to compete next year and return to the postseason. Instead, we still have the two sub-par players manning the OF corners, and now the discussions are focusing on bringing in guys like Fowler and Jackson, who aren't much better than the incumbents themselves. Big time, missed opportunity this week by the geniuses in the front office, the same guys who brought us Cabrera and Avi to begin with.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 24, 2016 -> 03:02 PM) Me too .I was one of the few who tried to say all his inconsistency , OBP and work ethic was overblown by his less than humble nature , the backlash that always comes when discussing a polarizing player, and the fact his numbers with RISP was fantastic and OBP wasn't much of a necessity when a guy makes habit of driving in big runs. I also spoke of combining him and Abreu to form the Cuban Connection and make the Cell a big fiesta when they started really rolling. You can't buy that kind of publicity and it would draw attention to the Sox like nothing else could have. It was absolutely a no-brainer to have brought Cespedes in, for exactly the reasons you stated. And yet we were outbid by the Madoff-challenged Mets to do so. This was a colossal failure for this front office, to be sure. And now we find ourselves in discussions about the free agent market leftovers, guys like Fowler, who is a table scrap from the Cubs made expendable by them because they DID acquire a premium available outfielder this offseason. Fowler, this year's Melky Cabrera: decent hitter, sub par defender. That sound like Cespedes to you?

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 24, 2016 -> 05:22 AM) Well we will see if the Sox have any intentions of spending money when some of the big boys are out of it. It'll be like the free agent class this year .And we know how that went. The Sox have never shown any indication of going over the allotment for the high end talent. I don't expect that to change. The Sox just do not outbid teams for the best talent available on any level. Abreu fell in their lap basically and they probably hoped the same thing would happen with any of the big 3 but hoping most of the 29 other teams disappear is no way of doing business. I know the Sox have hired different personnel lately for some of these things but I'm pretty convinced they will have to work within budgetary constraints and do the best they can within that framework. Reinsdorf has always benefited and maximized profits by just playing by the rules whereas other teams exploit the loopholes. He's always been a good boy with his buddy Bud Selig because bucking the system made trouble for the commish but mostly because it fit his agenda for limiting spending. It is just so nice to hear how Jerry Reinsdorf has managed to make himself and his investors happy over the years through his ability to "maximize profits", and to make Bud Selig happy by quote unquote playing by the rules. Meanwhile, with a terrible record of achievement over the years on the field, he has left the fan base most unhappy, as evidenced by the team's most recent attendance figures and TV ratings. And yet you can take it to the bank that at some point over next weekend at Soxfest, both Hahn and Williams will remind you of Jerry Reinsdorf's "competitive spirit" and "commitment to bring home another championship". Should sound familiar, they say the same thing every year. Reconciling the words with the results, though, gives you an entirely different answer.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 23, 2016 -> 05:28 PM) I will agree, it is very tough to talk to someone who has their mind made up, and the outrage switch flipped on. Like trying to have a reasoned discussion with you over your completely irrational view of the fan base?

QUOTE (blackmooncreeping @ Jan 23, 2016 -> 12:59 PM) While technically true (no Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, etc.), it didn't matter that the big spenders weren't in the mix--the big dollars were. Missing out on paying 27.5 million bucks for 1 year of Cespedes is blessing, not a failure. I wanted the guy, but not anywhere near that price tag. I think they thought the market would be less because the traditional deep pocket teams weren't in the mix--that is their failure imo. Then all of the angst in September about losing enough so that the Sox would have a protected first round pick really was all for nought, since we didn't take the opportunity to grab a top notch talent without having to surrender that pick.

QUOTE (Hatchetman @ Jan 23, 2016 -> 09:43 AM) I assume Hahn has some kind of plan here. He sure does, a three year one! Surely you remember hearing about that. Kenny Williams explained it to us all in great detail last June when he was trying to explain a way the horrid baseball that had been played up to that point in the season. And now as we inch closer to starting Year Two of said three year plan, as things stand now, given the abject failure of being able to be competitive in the marketplace for premium available talent, we find ourselves staring at Cabrera in left, Avi in right, Salidino at short, and LaRoche at DH. Those are some big holes. We are currently running below average in nearly half of our lineup, and it's January 23. Our options now to improve are on the second and third tier of the free agent market, the same lane we shopped in last winter that brought us Cabrera and LaRoche. Or trade some of our better but now limited supply of minor league talent to bring in appropriate upgrades. All because somehow the so-called brain trust in the front office set completely unrealistic terms for being competitive for the top talent out there. The big spender teams were no where to be found, and the Sox still couldn't get the job done. Very disappointing, to say the least. Maybe, just maybe, there is the proverbial rabbit still to be pulled from the hat at the last hour that will allow this team to compete this year. I hope so, at least to address two of those gaping holes currently in the lineup. Otherwise Year Two of the big plan doesn't project to be a whole lot better than Year One, not by much, anyway.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 01:27 PM) Again, a gross oversimplification of things. I wouldn't think that Hahn would need to add the obvious caveat of "without destroying the future" to the end of that, but apparently for some he does. If it was just about today, guys like Anderson and Fulmer would have already been dealt for upgrades, and they would have already signed a FA that requires draft pick compensation. 2019 and 2020 might not matter for you, but in a market where fan response is about as warm as Lake Michigan, mistakes get amplified. Having $20+ million in dead payroll would be a huge blow to the ballclub in those years that the fans won't tolerate. I can already see the handwringing going on full of hindsight and simplification. Lol - apparently I didn't oversimplify enough. You still don't get it! But ok, let me try and spell it out this way to see if this will help get the point across to you. The Exec VP of Baseball Operations and the General Manager are on record of saying they want to "maximize" the opportunity presented by the current core of players in the next few years to compete for a championship. We still have some big holes surrounding the core that if they go uncorrected, will not allow us to "maximize" this opportunity. Any solution available to us at the moment to correct one of these holes will have an impact on the future, be it trading away elite talent we have in the minors to acquire a solution, or spending money in the open market that could limit options in the future beyond the current window of opportunity. Signing Yoenis Cespedes to a five year contract is the best option at the moment to both solve one of the remaining obstacles to "maximizing" the current window, while having the least amount of impact on future endeavors. Because of the team friendly contracts currently in place through '19 and '20, the addition of Cespedes at this point in time in no way resembles a scenario that "destroys the future". Not even close. So which is better - having Cespedes on the books in '19 and '20 or potentially not having Anderson and Fulmer on this team then in the prime of their careers. I think the answer is pretty obvious. So take your pick, SS2K5. Either trade away Anderson or Fulmer to acquire Major League talent to help boost this team over the top, or sign Cespedes. Those are the two options that will best enable the team to "maximize" blah blah blah. Doing nothing and standing pat because we're shaking in our boots about possible ramifications down the road ain't gonna get it done. Signing a second tier, cheaper outfield solution does not "maximize" our ability to compete because Cespedes >>> than those options. If you have a better answer, let's hear it. We're all ears!!

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 12:58 PM) I was as high on Avi as anyone on this board . Ask Eminor about that . But I've moved on. That's not to say I still don't think he's valueless but as of this moment for a team wanting to compete he is valueless. Sports illustrated did an article about Cespedes weighing his last 3 seasons on a 5/4/3 scale . Most of the weight given to last season but only a little more than 2014 and 2014 a little more than 2013. Now 2013 and 2014 are cited as his "inconsistent" years so overall they are weighted more than just his 1 great year. Then they project his value in bWAR for the coming years and what those years would be worth money wise. For someone who is supposedly very inconsistent they said for the 1st 3 years he's projected to be worth $84M , another $23.3 M in the 4th year and $20.3M in a fifth year. In order to get those highly productive 1st 3 years it's been standard practice to pay for a few years where he declines . You just have to hope it isn't a precipitous decline. http://www.si.com/mlb/2016/01/05/whats-he-...des-free-agency That is the only "potential" downside to signing Yoenis for five years, that he "might" not be as productive towards the end of the contract. Meanwhile, for the next two to three years, the window in which we'd like to compete, you get a 30 HR, 100 RBI guy in the middle of your lineup and a substantial improvement in the outfield defense. THAT'S WHAT WE NEED! And we don't have to give up any prospects or talent on the roster, nor sacrifice a draft pick to get him. He is the best option to fill one of our gaping holes in the outfield. If it means tacking on those two last years, then just do it, for godssake. He "might" just continue to be productive in those years as well, given he'll only be 33/34. Who knows! Let's worry about that in '19 and '20. For now, let's follow through with what I thought was the stated mandate which is to "maximize" the window of opportunity this team has right now to win in these next few years. Yoenis Cespedes provides us the best chance to do so among our existing options.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 12:33 PM) Call me crazy but I'm not ready to give up on Avi yet. Cespedes is very inconsistent on offense and may become complacent with a big contract. I would not be surprised at all to see Avi put up numbers similar or better than Cespedes did in 2013 or 2014. Obviously there are still big differences between their defense and base running abilities but if Avi can improve even marginally in both I think he has a shot to be a useful player this year. One of the objectives in trying to "maximize" the window of opportunity that exists with guys like Sale, Quintana, and Rodon on the staff is to try and put the best defense behind them as possible. Obviously with Avi in right and Cabrera in left, we are nowhere near in a position to accomplish that goal. One or both have to go (Cabrera to DH). I just don't see Avi improving enough on the defense side of his game to justify running him out there again in a year that we are trying to win. That's what I love about Cespedes. The guy is one stop shopping for not only bringing badly needed power to our lineup, but he also represents a massive upgrade defensively to one of the outfield positions.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 10:30 AM) You are also completely misrepresenting the situation. The White Sox IN THIS CASE (and in the case of an older Gordon) have made a three year line in the sand, because that is what they feel is right, for whatever reason that is (age of player, history of player, budgetary considerations, maybe a combination of all of those). If the team thinks he is going to be Adam Dunn in four years, they shouldn't offer the guy 5 years just because one other team is. History will bear out if it is the right move or not. This could be a Juan Gonzalez situation where we thank god for the next five years we didn't give Cespedes that deal. And just for realities sake, just last winter, the Sox signed David Robertson to a 4 year deal. Jose Abreu was a 6 year deal the winter before without every having seen a pitch in the United States. Both as free agents. That also doesn't count the long term deals given to internal players such as Adam Eaton (5 years), Chris Sale (6 years), Jose Quintana (6 years), and many more prior to those. I'm obviously not saying the Sox have never offered a contract longer than three years, for heavens sake. I'm merely pointing out that this line in the sand they've drawn for the available premium outfield talent in this year's free agent season does not appear to be competitive, given what the other outfielders have received. And yes, it could turn out to be a mistake to sign him that long. He could tank as others have. He could also end up being worth every penny, as others have. It's the risk you take every time you go through this. All I know is we have two big holes in the outfield from both an offensive and defensive point of view, and this guy Cespedes seems to be the best option available to address one of those holes. If we were in a rebuild, I'd say no, don't try and bring Cespedes in. But we are not, we are trying to compete, and therefore I think it behooves us to bring this guy into the fold. I don't see a better option at the moment.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 10:29 AM) Why is NO team apparently offering him that contract? Do you know something no one else knows? I was going to answer the first question, but then I saw the unnecessary snarky second question, and decided you are not worth the time.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 10:22 AM) If he ends up taking a guaranteed 5 year deal in the $110-120 million range, then I don't think the Sox would look bad for refusing to go that high. Cespedes is not good enough to warrant that. I respectfully disagree. I think he is worth that contract, given the current market conditions. He brings power, defense and speed to this team, which the last time I looked, we were running short on. And at age 30, where a five year contract would end before he turns 35, I think we could expect the kind of production throughout the term of the contract to justify it. That's just my opinion.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 10:17 AM) The funny part is the Mets are doing exactly this with Cespedes. I know, and it may turn out that this will be the actual market for the guy, a contract in the 3-4 year range. It's just with the backdrop of Heyward getting an eight year deal, Upton a five year, and Gordon four years, that this "Three year contract - take it or leave it" approach is simply not being competitive in the current market. I want the Sox to get Cespedes. I think he makes a whole lot of sense for the Sox and fulfills a few key needs. Maybe they'll get him under a three year deal, in which case, great, if they can get it done that way. But if someone else snaps him up for five years while we're standing there waving a three year deal in the air, well, I don't think that's going to look very good at all.

QUOTE (CyAcosta41 @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 09:35 AM) FWIW (and it ain't worth much) ... Knocking down some beers with another big-time knowledgeable Sox fan ... similar to many of us in understanding the landscape of players throughout baseball and thirsting for knowledge about how these deals go down. Like me, he's a transactional attorney, so we get a special kick out of deal structuring as well (billionaires paying multi-millionaires, and all that jazz). HE has a friend that was a long-time Sox investor/advisor on the business side of baseball. According to MY friend, HIS friend said the Sox were and continue to be IN on Cespedes, but on their terms and are determined to not chase because of outside opinion. I think most of us agree that's very consistent with this ownership group from Day #1. No surprise there. They LIKE Cespedes, but don't LOVE him -- they'll take him as a value play, and that's value determined by their metrics. He's also told the framework of the possible deal is what many have suggested (this isn't rocket science): * Base deal is 3 years for X * Player opt out after year 2 * Mutual option for year 4 (player option vests upon objective performance) * Second mutual option for year 5 (player option vests upon objective performance in year 4, if any) In essence, POSSIBLY a 5 year deal with big bucks under certain circumstances. Plus, player outs to reenter the market should he feel like doing so for various reasons. Personally (and, of course, if true), I applaud the Sox for try to land a guy with a very high ceiling (but with a definite low-ish floor at this contract amount), but on their terms. At the end of the day, not only do you want a guy that wants to be here, you want a guy that is taking a deal because he's happy to get this particular deal. Mindset is important on most personal service contracts, but especially where there is reason to believe that the "talent" is a bit mercurial. I like the thought of bringing a guy in who is contractually motivated to out-perform his contract in a monster way over the next two years to benefit himself. This framework jives with the two-year plan for some of our other talent. Well, that's all well and good, but the one thing you left out is the fact that "our" terms don't seem to be in line with the terms other teams are operating under in the open market at the moment. "Our" terms comprising the three year contract approach don't align with the five+ year contracts that the other similar talents are currently receiving in this free agent season. So we can stick to our guns and try to operate under "our" terms, but I'm afraid by doing so we'll be left out in the cold with no addition of the available premium talent that we definitely have a need for.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 21, 2016 -> 11:56 AM) First off he mentions, since Caray's 3rd season (1984) gee, what happened in 1984? And again, you are totally ignoring the fact that the White Sox would never have had the access of 100+ dates on the superstation through no fault of JR or EE. In 1981, WGN carried 64 White Sox games. By June, Eddie Einhorn was in the booth with Harry telling him that the TV ratings were the highest they'd ever been and that it was being reflected in increased attendance as well. So even though, to your point, the Sox would never get as many games televised on WGN as the Cubs, even with the abbreviated schedule, Caray broadcasting Sox games on WGN where he was reaching a far greater audience than he ever did on the lowly Channel 44 was clearly having an impact. Just ask Eddie Einhorn - he'll tell ya!!

For those interested in understanding the impact Harry Caray had on the Cubs franchise and why it was a terrible mistake by our current knuckleheaded owners to ever let him go, have a look at this well-written synopsis. The author is spot on as it relates to this subject. http://kentsterling.com/2013/07/15/chicago...lk-to-the-cubs/

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 09:01 PM) SO why haven't they fallen off since then, and why didn't the Sox see that bounce in the 70's? Well this is precisely my point when I talk about the mega impact the coming together of Harry Caray and his extraordinary salesmanship and the exposure that came along with superstation WGN. It was a match made in heaven. That guy absolutely sold the Wrigley Field experience like no other. Remember, the Cubs were not the national fixation they are today before Harry arrived there. In fact, in his first season, '82, that game when Lee Elia went off the rails, there were only 3,000 fans in the stands that day. When was the last time you could say there were only 3,000 fans at Wrigley? Now granted, it took Caray a couple of years to take hold on the north side. Cubs fans had to get used to his style after decades of the Jack Brickhouse style. But in '84 he really started to take off, and the Cubs franchise has not looked back ever since. They were a terrible team for most of Harry's time there, with the exception of '84 & '89, but starting in '84, that place was packed to the rafters almost every day and has been ever since. And it's all because of Caray's years of selling Wrigley Field to the gazillions of people across the nation who got WGN in their homes. As for the Sox in the 70s, they absolutely got a bounce from his presence. In fact, that's why the Sox brought him to Chicago in the first place, hoping he would help with what was a disastrous attendance problem back in those days. The Sox drew under 500,000 in 1970, and so Harry's contract starting in 1971 included an attendance clause. The Sox improved their attendance in each of the years he was broadcasting and he received the maximum bonus as per the agreement, to the point that attendance improved so much after a few years that they simply couldn't afford to pay him that bonus any longer. And that was with no where near the exposure he got when he was on WGN. So that was his specialty, selling the experience for whichever team he was employed for. I just wish he would have continued to have done so for the Sox on WGN, like he did for the one year when he had the chance to do so. Unfortunately the owners' egos got in the way of that happening.