The Ultimate Champion

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 03:07 PM) OMG that's so hot

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 03:01 PM) This is like watching a train continuously crash into itself, like some f***ed up type of snake. That sounds hot.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 02:58 PM) You're not following. Of the 5 that are primarily used, you need to routinely maintain 2 of them. Thus, you have 2 others that work. All 7 are necessary. If you take one of them out, then suddenly you can't meet the demand. If that demand were ever decreased, I'm sure you could sell one of those machines and recoup some of your cost. You are suggesting putting that machine on the side of the road. Ok I see now. Well then in this context Dunn would be the 8th washing machine & it's constantly regurgitating detergent back onto the customers. Of course, this defective 8th washing machine might be quite a big hit at a rave party where the idea *is* to be bombarded with soapiness and bubbles, so maybe you send both this 8th washing machine and Dunn to said nightclub and the machine can pump out bubbles while Dunn's donkey ass can hand out bracelets at the door.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 02:23 PM) Is this a serious question? Say you're running a laundromat, and you have Seven washing machines. Five of them are usually sufficient to get the job done, but there are two of them that occasionally need maintenance so the other two, lesser quality ones are used. They get the job done, but not as well. You are spending $200 a day to run these and take home $400, and you continually make a profit of $200. Someone offers you the opportunity to bring in another washing machine that is just as good as the first five (though you, being a smart businessman, know it's not necessary because you only need five). This increases your daily costs to $350. You are still only bringing in $400, but now you've cut your profits to $50. So you've got 7 washing machines but you only have the demand for 5? And yet you still insist on paying extra maintenance costs for two dated machines which demand doesn't even necessitate? Hmm, this all reminds me of the dilemma the Sox are facing with Dunn. They've already spent the money on Dunn, just like you have already bought 7 washing machines. Two of these machines are defective (presumably well out of warranty as they'd have both been replaced by any no-lemon guarantee) just like Dunn is a defective #4 hitter. Both the extra washing machines and Dunn are unnecessary for the future success of the business. With your washing machines, rather than continue to pay into a sunk cost which you already know was an unnecessary investment in the first place, the proper choice would be to liquidate your 2 extra washing machines (take whatever you can get for them and stop paying into them via maintenance costs) and then when demand increases to where you need a 6th washing machine, you can then buy a new one under a new warranty which will cover you into the future. Similarly, the Sox should take whatever they can get out of their own sunk cost i.e. Dunn rather than continue to invest resources (playing time) into it. Dunn - thank you for the analogy wite - is basically the baseball version of a defective washing machine that was completely unnecessary in the first place.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Feb 2, 2014 -> 10:15 PM) Interestingly, I agree with TUC and Marty in one regard: I do think it would be ideal for Dunn to be off the Sox soon, precisely so that one of ADA or Viciedo can retain their value and possibly develop further. What I disagree with is the idea that we should just dump Dunn no matter what. That's too drastic. His value is at a minimum right now but could reasonably go up by the all-star break, to the point where you don't have to swallow the rest of his contract. Have some patience. You're almost there, Scotty. Keep coming, you almost got it. You're waaaaaay ahead of the others and I'm happy about that. So you will admit that the Sox are better off without the old ball and chain, I agree. You also admit that you're willing to play the guy roughly half the season (meaning you're happy eating $7.5M of that deal or so) because you hope that he can build enough value that someone else would be willing to take on *some* of that deal. How much? You must also be willing to admit that even if the Sox find a suitor it is unlikely they will find someone that will assume the other roughly $7.5M left on his deal. So how much is enough? How much money would you need to see the Sox get back to make it worth carrying dead weight for half the season? And secondly, that $$$ you would save, where does it go? The Sox are already under budget as it is. It's funny how posters here are willing to admit that Dunn has basically no value, and admit that he's not going to bring back much if anything in trade, and they can also admit that the Sox will have to eat $$$ to send him on his way. But somehow it's tough to swallow just letting him go, maybe even as I have mentioned before, trying to re-work his deal and defer some of that money. Marty is absolutely right, keeping Dunn is pennywise and pound foolish. If fact if you look at term up in any good dictionary you're going to see some giant left-handed oaf standing there confusedly with a bat on his shoulder. Ah yes, one of the tallest midgets on the worst offense in baseball, sure, but aren't we trying to move on from that. It seems like most of SoxTalk is willing to suffer through another several months of this guy & call out the fans for being classless for booing, and blah blah blah, looking to pick up a couple mil in savings and maybe even a s***ty prospect too. Great. I'm with Marty, pennywise and poundfoolish, and Scotty I hope you can come over to this side of the fence where the grass is definitely greener and the sky is crystal blue and it doesn't smell like Dunn over here at all because we've already gotten past that guy, he's already long gone to us, we're just trying to help others like the Sox upper management for instance find that same sense of sanity & dump the guy while there is still time.

QUOTE (rowand's rowdies @ Feb 2, 2014 -> 11:09 AM) I wonder how the most famous non American White Sox fan became one, Barack Obama lol best post ever btw football sucks, otoh the kitten bowl so far has been pretty entertaining

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 2, 2014 -> 12:46 AM) I think you answered your own question here. Dunn has little to no value while you can actually get a useful piece for De Aza or Viciedo. Which is EXACTLY why you play Dunn at the expense of DeAza and Viciedo! BRILLIANT!

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 1, 2014 -> 12:32 PM) Tad Iguchi's GS against the Cubbies http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/media/play...b_tp350&v=2 Didn't Tadahito have a game where he almost single-handedly won it with 2 HR and came up with an opportunity for a third but failed, and we lost? I seem to releber that, I think he hit a slam and a 2run HR or something, then came up in extras with a chance to homer and win it. IIRC he had something like 6-7 RBIs in about a 2-inning stretch.

Steve Lyons taking his pants off at first base. Anything involving Brian Daubach.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Jan 31, 2014 -> 01:56 PM) It doesn't matter. The Sox should sign Jimenez or that other guy to a 4-year/$50 million contract instead. It's funny how people think a pitcher who was very good as recently as last year can't bring back a worthwhile return in trade within a year or two but somehow Dunn can. Whatever. At least we don't *have* to pay another pitcher, however we do *have* to pay Dunn. You guys are terrible.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 31, 2014 -> 01:56 PM) White Sox fans don't buy tickets. That won't change with Dunn gone. Goddamn I just can't argue with that one. Maybe instead of a Disco Demolition Night we have a Dunn Demolition Night & all the fans throw s*** at Dunn from the stands. Or maybe instead of your typical Dog Day instead of bringing their dogs the fans just spend the whole game pointing at Dunn.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 31, 2014 -> 12:55 PM) It is a hefty "thanks for playing the game, here's $14,000,000.00 and the home version as a partying gift". He's already got that. The money has already been spent. Re: the rest of this abortion: The arguments for keeping Dunn here are hilarious. Supposedly he's not taking ABs away from anyone that matters, right. Are his ABs coming from the sky? Are the Sox getting a special exemption this year that offers them 33 or so outs per game so that Dunn's PA won't count against the team? Do they get to keep a 26th man this year while the other 29 teams get 25? This is absurd. WTF do you people think is a realistic return for this guy? Do you really think anything of value is coming back? How much $$$ you think another team is going to be willing to eat? And why would you expect that return to be more valuable than getting a better look at players we already have on the roster? Trying to recoup a small part of a terrible investment at the cost of PAs for players who are under team control for several seasons is absurd, the thinking is completely irrational and counterproductive to the entire process. The money has already been spent, we already surrendered the draft pick. Put the drink down, tell the waitress to go away, stand up and walk away from the table you irrational gambling maniac lush. Goodness gracious. Dunn is not a part of the team's future. Regardless of results, his PA are much better spent on other players who have a chance at being long-term players, whether they are as starters or bench guys. The "striking fear into the opposition" part is f***ing hilarious also. We're really going to be striking fear into pitchers looking to rack up stats against our s***ty bottom feeding team. And the idea that just because Dunn may put up better numbers than say Jake Elmore, it is better to play Dunn is equally hilarious. I'm laughing with anger right now, man this is great, what a riot. This team is going to be *losing for a very specific purpose* and the idea here is to find out as much as possible about as many players as possible so that the losing doesn't have to continue much further than it already has to. Playing Dunn this year is THE SAME EXACT THING as signing a 1-year DH for the league minimum and giving him the PA necessary to rebuild his value. Now with the right player in the situation this *could* be an intelligent move, however signing a very limited hacker like Dunn, who 25 teams probably wouldn't even have a place for even under the best of realistic circumstances as it is, and then expecting that player to some how climb out of what appears to be a career-ending statistical decline - that's not very smart. Again, there IS NO DIFFERENCE. The $15M is gone. We're not going to be getting back a good enough player or enough of that salary to make it worth the while to give Dunn PA over just about any other member of this roster. You guys keep making the same flawed arguments over and over: we're not going to be winning. The numbers don't matter. The PA however do. Now I expect to be quoted and have something said like "well you're just wrong" or "no team is going to eat that much money" completely ignoring all of the logic behind making the necessary moves to dump this guy from the roster. If the Sox can recover anything at all in salary they should do it. They can't get out of their payroll obligations and every other f***ing team knows this and because of this the Sox have exactly zero leverage in any trade negotiation. The PA and development time of other players are more important than Dunn and anything Dunn can realistically bring back. Even if you get back the ghost of Brandon Hynick and $1.5M savings you're still getting a deal because you just opened up a s***load of PA & opened up another roster spot. Have mercy. Thank God for Marty, he makes a lot of sense sometimes but yall just wanna hate irrespectively. I can hate too when it comes to his views on Ozzie, but his thoughts on Dunn are accurate. The fans don't want this guy on the team and yes, that does mean something, since they buy the f***ing tickets. Christ in heaven. Jesus.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 30, 2014 -> 02:31 PM) That isn't completely true. There is nothing to stop Dunn from having a bounce back spring and finding the one team who will give up something for him. If not, you are at the same place you started. Adam Dunn on this roster doesn't hurt the Sox one iota. The guys we are talking about giving plate appearances to are all worse than Adam Dunn, and won't be any real part of any good future White Sox teams. Connor Gillaspie has potential 4-5 year value just as-is, as a bench player, provided he can make some adjustments. DeAza has the potential to bring back something in trade. Viciedo has the potential to become an above-average hitter and long-term DH. Leury/Elmore/Danks/whoever have the potential to also become multi-year players in other roles. Dunn gets you what exactly? Nothing. Nobody wants to give up quality prospects anymore and Dunn can't even fit on like 25 of the 30 teams out there as it is. It's foolish to hang onto this guy, but whatever, I'm done with this thread. The Sox are morons hanging onto this guy.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jan 30, 2014 -> 02:23 PM) I love how everybody thinks that the guy who had the highest OPS on the team last year is the problem. Yea, maybe he's no longer worth the $15 million he's getting paid, but the talk of just cutting him and absorbing the cost is just ridiculous. And anybody who even suggests that Dunn was the reason the Reds and Nationals weren't making the playoffs when he was putting up his .900+ OPS seasons is a f***ing moron. Adam Dunn was a taller midget among the many midgets who danced around on last year's 99-loss team. If players here continue to put up numbers like Dunn's have been here then guess what? We're the f***ing Royals. That's real fun. The idea is to change this. BTW we're not contending next year. Whatever offensive improvement Dunn may provide of any other potential core piece is absolutely irrelevant and only further removes us from the #1 pick. We're not nearly close enough for such a marginal increase to push us over the top and into contention.

Adam Dunn is the junked car sitting in your front lawn. It doesn't matter that you paid $6,000 for it on Craigslist. It doesn't matter that it *should* have run like this or that, or that it "shouldn't* have had this or that problem. The point is that your yard is a s*** hole, and there's a guy out there who will happily come tow it away for you and give you whatever it's junked value is. You already lost your money, that's gone, and nobody is ever going to give you value back beyond the scrap amount that it's worth. So you have a choice, either deal with your mistake and move forward or sit there and hope someone will pay you an amount that the market isn't going to bare. If you have to eat $14M and take back nothing then that $1M saved is $1M more you can devote to another area or simply hang on to. If you have to eat all the cash then you still end up with 500-600 extra PA over a season to work with. Still a bonus, and still more than you had before.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 30, 2014 -> 02:13 PM) It is being run like a business, which is why Dunn is still here. If he does something in the first half he could still have value. If he doesn't, he still has the same value he has now, zero. He isn't blocking anyone worth a s*** from playing. Dunn isn't a problem in the clubhouse. There is literally no good reason for the White Sox to eat Dunn's deal right now. If they are going to be paying him no matter what, it is better to save him for the chance, no matter how small, that he has a decent first half and someone takes him on. He's taking ABs away from Viciedo, DeAza, and Gillaspie, and he is taking a roster spot away from Leury/Elmore/Danks/the list goes on. AAA Charlotte is already loaded in the infield as it is. He's taking away a LOT and for what is in all probability no return. No return. And you still have to pay him $15M no matter what you do and no matter what he does.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 30, 2014 -> 02:10 PM) And the main counterpoint...that the Sox would have moved him already if they could get anything useful for him...remains as well. You don't need to. Why would you need to? The PA alone represent a significant amount in terms of resources. Players need to play so that you know what you have on your roster. Rebuilding teams need to develop players. Keeping Dunn in hopes of gaining some marginal prospect and/or a couple mil in savings is one of the dumbest things any rebuilding team can do because it is pissing away one extremely valuable resource in hopes of recovering some scant amount of a poor investment. Again, this is a business, not an episode of Oprah.

QUOTE (hammerhead johnson @ Jan 30, 2014 -> 02:06 PM) Rosenbloom is the man, but this rant was particularly stupid. It's not Dunn's fault that the Reds has horrendous pitching during his time in Cincinnati. It's not, but the main point remains: Dunn's a nice guy, but he needs to go.

And Rosenbloom is right. Because Dunn's a nice guy everyone wants to stick up for him and play the emotional angle. This game hoever is supposed to be run like a business, not an episode of Oprah. He's tuna, f***in can him.

The Sox have to pay Dunn $15M more no matter what. The Sox have to accept that they cannot get anything of value out of Dunn in a trade because he has no value to anyone. The one thing they do not have to do is play him, or even keep him on the roster. Someone in the borderline top-25 prospects section compared Wilkins to Gload. That's a nice thing if it happens given that Gload was a solid bench player who got us Andy Sisco - who didn't turn out, but huge lefties throwing mid-to-high 90's are a nice return for a bench player, not matter how you slice it. Thing is, we already have another potential Gload on the roster, probably a far more versatile one actually, and his name is Connor Gillaspie. Connor alone represents more than what the Sox could hope to get out of Dunn through trade, and he also represents more long-term potential value to the franchise than Dunn offers. Connor Gillaspie alone is enough reason to call a spade a f***ing spade and dump the guy. But when you further add in the absolute lunacy that is a platoon situation between Viciedo and DeAza it's a f***ing no-brainer. You don't take ABs away from any of these guys in favor of Dunn. This is so stupid. The Sox need to admit they f***ed up and dump the guy. If Dunn's such a great teammate and whatever then maybe he'll do an Andruw Jones/Dodgers thing, where the Dodgers deferred some $$$ and Andruw was able to sign with the Rangers for the minimum and extend his career a bit as a bench guy. What f***in team is going to step up and take some of this $$$$? What f***in team is going to step up and offer a player of consequence? Nobody. f***in nobody. Suck it up and do what you have to do Sox.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are options in this deal and that could be why exact length of the deal hasn't been announced. Robin may have wanted an out at some point, and the Sox meanwhile probably wanted to make sure Robin wasn't a lame duck type. He needs that respect from the players. My guess is 2 years guaranteed (2014-2015) and who knows after that, probably a 2016 option IMO & maybe a 2017 option too.

QUOTE (southside hitman @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 04:01 PM) Unless you are confident in Santana or Jimenez magically pitching better then they ever have in careers during their mid 30's, we will not get back excess value for them. The point of free agency is to determine their market value which you are suggesting we set by giving them a long term contract. Almost assuredly, they will not exceed or even met their contract and they will be a liability, similar to the Rios situation. We basically had to salary dump Rios even though he was a capable player due to his bad contract. We would be lucky to simply get out from under their contract, let only get back something equal to or better than the #43 overall amateur player in the country. There's no point in reading your post beyond this. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/santaer01.shtml Look at his career performance. Factor in the ups with the downs and and he's at least a solid pitcher. His 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2013 seasons were very good and should bring back a high return on the trade market. If he pitches up to previous levels he will bring back a quality return. Please look at the numbers next time.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 04:01 PM) Right now, the Sox rotation features: -3 guys who are making 7 (or 8) digit figures -1 guy who has put up great numbers over the past 2 years, and -1 guy who is the top pitching prospect in the system and one of the more highly thought of pitchers in all of minor league baseball. Who are you kicking out of the rotation to bring in Ervin Santana or Ubaldo Jimenez? Paulino to the bullpen? Say good bye to Daniel Webb then. Johnson? No point in having him repeat AAA when he destroyed it last year. It's an absolutely absurd, ridiculous, crazy idea to bring in another starting pitcher. Thank f*** Rick Hahn is the GM. God forbid Paulino goes to the pen. Lindstrom can be traded to clear the way for Webb if need be. Can't make an omelet without breaking a couple eggs. You're sitting atop Hyperbole Mountain right now with the craziness and absurdity etc etc etc especially when your main arguments are Paulino's future and the loss of a second round pick

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:38 PM) It's legal, it would just burn a lot of bridges. Trading him immediately might, but I don't see why we'd do that anyway. I don't see why we wouldn't be honest and upfront with free agents as far as what our plans are and I don't see why any free agent would sign a deal he thinks he'd shortly regret without getting compensated for that fact elsewhere in the deal.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:42 PM) Peavy signed a 2 year deal with a vesting option for the 3rd. You are also saying it may be illegal. So, here's what I have -Sign 30 year old pitcher offering more than any other team will give. -Keep said player for 1-2 years while White Sox have no idea what they have in multiple young pitchers. -Trade said player after same time period because the Sox will totally not be in a position to compete in 2016 and giving up that asset makes the most sense. -Still give up 2nd round pick and prevent White Sox from getting any actual additional prospect during the rebuilding years. Is that about the sum of your arguments? I sure hope so, because that looks like something the f***ing Mariners would do. ???? I'm saying to offer Santana a little bit better than what Kazmir got, similar to Nolasco or less, etc. Santana is a better pitcher with better stuff than all these 4s and 5s that signed this offseason, and if we can get him at a similar price then yes, do it, absolutely. Yes, you keep your vets until your youngsters prove they need to play in the Majors. It's called insurance, stability, etc. You're making these young guys prove they deserve to be there and not just tossing them into the fire. And you only trade 1 or 2 of Danks/Santana if/when the young guys push them out. You make the deal at that point because you feel you can replace that production within a year or so of MLB development time through a 6-year pre-arb player. You save money and get back talent in return. Net positive. Yes, you give up the 2nd round pick. What part of this are you missing? That 2nd rounder isn't nearly as likely to bring the Sox value in the same way a proven MLB starter with Santana's ability can. What don't you get? No, that's nothing like the Mariners. The Mariners??? Really? They relied on prospects forever, not mixing in vets, and then they went on a splurge after years of failure. I'm not sure how using Santana to plug a hole and then spinning him off for value later is somehow Mariners like or somehow detrimental to the long-term success of an organization or how it would in any way jeopardize a rebuilding effort.