BlackSox13

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 11:51 AM) Honestly though that was probably the ugliest design possible. Especially in a city like Chicago, can't believe they'd put up such a basic, functional park. QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 11:54 AM) The renovations made it go from awful to actually pretty good Agree with you both. The first time I went to the "new" park I thought, "this is it?". I used to laugh and agree with cub fans when they referred to it as the concrete palace. It's come a long, long way since then.

" The Concrete Palace"!!!! Hard to believe 25 years has flown by already.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 11:35 AM) Trading DRob would make no sense considering the position that the Sox are in. If the Sox intend to compete, DRob is a quality closer that is needed during a pennant chase. If they traded him, who would close? Jones? I have very little confidence in his abilites as a closer. Well, I did say that I doubted the Sox would trade Robertson. I think if the Sox were willing to do so, he would be gone already.

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 11:28 AM) That would be a ton of money for Cubs to spend on a 4th outfielder and give up their 2nd round pick for. They also have no need for him in a year or so, as they really want Almora to be their GG center fielder in the future. But Fowler wouldnt be a fourth outfielder. He would start in CF, Heyward would start in RF and LF would be a platoon of Schwarber/Soler. You make a good point about not needing Fowler in a year or so. Almora and McKinney should be ready by this time next year. The cubs could always trade Fowler next year when the outfield market is less crowded with available players.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 11:22 AM) The Sox are not reacquiring Trayce. Time to put that idea to bed. IDK, worked for Gio in the past. I'm just trying to think of a player the Dodgers might be willing to part with that the Sox could get in return with Crawford, not that I want Crawford. In the end, it just doesn't sound like the Dodgers and Sox match up for any kind of trade. Maybe if the Sox were willing to put Robertson on the trade table but I doubt the SOX do that.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 11:00 AM) Teams that inquire about Yaisel Puig_and not Ethier_are being told by the #Dodgers that he is not available, at least not now. https://twitter.com/BNightengale/status/695286796532342786 I believe Nightengale on this one. Despite Puig's struggles, trading Crawford/Ethier makes more sense.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 10:42 AM) Coming into the offseason, Fowler wanted something along the lines of 4 years and $60-$70 million. Fowler will not be signing until he decides to accept a lot less than that. Fowler really has no choice but to come down in price. Fowler's best hope might be for the cubs to trade Coghlan and then re-sign with the cubs. The cubs might be willing to offer Fowler close to his 4 year demands.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 10:55 AM) ...but KW always gets his guy. Honestly, I hope the Sox have zero interest in Carl, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did, assuming LAD would eat most of his contract. I'm hoping for the same. If the Dodgers ate most of Crawford's contract and offered another player, then maybe but it would depend on who that other player is. Crawford + money + Thompson for Duke + Webb? Eh, highly doubtful.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 10:46 AM) And the White Sox have been pretty straight forward about keeping Adams, Fulmer, and Anderson. Unless LAD is desperate to move Ethier, I have a hard team seeing it work. I think the media is making the Dodgers look more desperate than they really are and it seems like the Dodgers value Ethier more than the Sox. Definitely not looking like a match at this point. I believe the writers when they said the Dodgers prefer to trade Crawford, I would too if I were them. But Crawford has less than zero value and thankfully, the Sox have less than zero interest. So I guess that brings us back to Fowler, lol.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 10:10 AM) I still think if fowler signs it will be closer to melky's deal. i don't think 3/30 will happen. If it does that is a tremendous deal, if it's less, its a steal. $10 million for an outfielder with a strength (obp) as good as his is pretty remarkable. But, I think 3/44-45 is what we end up seeing. QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 10:22 AM) Agreed...to me, Sox should offer a 3 year, 42 million contract with opt-out after 2 years. 2016 be somewhere around 10, second year at 16. I'm thinking the same as you guys. Fowler is probably using Melky's contract as a starting point.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 08:19 AM) When I was reading through the Eithier thread. I started thinking how a blockbuster trade between the Dodgers and White Sox might work and it centered around Q but thinking of it made my brain hurt. I thought of reasonable Dodger targets (meaning no Seager). Pederson. Puig, Montas, Thompson any of their starters not named Kershaw. They have depth but not a lot of quality and a few oft injured guys . I figured it could be done but I don't get paid to figure this s*** out, Hahn does ,so let his brain hurt. Quintana for Pederson, Urias and Montas .Is that a big enough "small army" for Q ? Or we csan take Eithier instead but then we get another prospect. I really don't see the Sox trading Q, I was just throwing that out there. The Dodgers have been very adamant in keeping certain prospects like Seager, Pederson, Urias and De Leon. I'm with on bringing back TT. I like his game and should be a fine fourth outfielder but I can't come up with a trade package that the Dodgers might be interested in. Was hoping for something where the Sox offer to take on all of Ethier's contract and get Thompson for....... well, that's where I'm stuck.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 07:09 AM) Trying working in a place with a bunch of assholes. It makes a difference. I have, numerous times.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 11:50 PM) You have it backwards. Maybe not jealous, but they felt it wasn't fair or right. As far as characterizing someone in that way, everyone says the same about AJ Pierzynski. Unless we grew up in the same exact situation in Cuba, had buscones and shadowy hitmen threatening our lives and numerous attempts to flee your country and leaving family behind...then he had very little time in the minors to make an adjustment and at the age of 22 you're the biggest star/phenom in the majors for half a season. I'm not sure how many people in the world are equipped to deal with it all. Probably the same percentage of huge lottery winners who are still happier ten years after winning than the day they won. I know Molly Knight has her book and her own agenda, but if the case was so simple Puig would be on another team right now. Clayton Kershaw would have bucked against doing a promotional camp down in Cuba along with Puig and the disgruntled teammates would have forced a trade. It's also no surprise from following Greinke his entire career in KC that he clashes with as many if not more people than Puig. You're putting words in their mouths by saying they were jealous of Puig. Turner wasn't even with the Dodgers when Puig became the Dodgers starting OF in '13, Greinke and Kershaw have NOTHING to be jealous over with Puig, so that leaves Van Slyke and not a shred of evidence to support Van Slyke being jealous of Puig. It wasn't fair or right? This is the MLB, not romper room. Good grief, somebody call the whambulance for poor little arrogant Yasiel, its nappy time for him. Bottom line is that when four players on the same team have a problem with one, its likely that the one player is the problem. Let's not forget about Puig's off the field incident this winter. You can make any excuse you like but Puig's biggest problem is Puig, not his teammate's.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 10:51 PM) The counterargument is Kemp, Puig, Hanley and Co. all got along great in that second half of 2013 when they went like 42-9. Part of the problem is having too much talent on one team and players being benched is that it leads to jealousy (see Cavs) when not every player is treated in the same way. Mattingly let Puig get away with a lot his rookie year and then it was difficult to get the genie back in the bottle. I don't buy it for a second. Why would Puig be jealous over Van Slyke who's a backup OF or Turner who plays 3B or Kershaw/Greinke whom are starting pitchers? Nothing to be jealous of. Puig is just an asshole, plain and simple.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 10:48 PM) Yet they won the division with 92 wins. They lost in the playoffs because the Mets pitching staff was so good. That had nothing to do with chemistry. I don't disagree with that, just don't agree with winning builds team chemistry. Winning helps but it didn't help in the case of at least four known players to have problems with Puig. On one occasion Puig and Grienke had to be separated and on another occasion Puig and Turner had to be seperated. Obviously he didn't get along well with some of his teammates, or his own sister for that matter. Puig is a problem the Sox don't need.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 09:41 PM) If you win, Puig and Lawrie will be besties. If you lose, it wont matter anyway. Winning builds clubhouse chemistry, just get talent. Didn't work for the Dodgers clubhouse. Greinke, Van Slyke, Turner and Kershaw all had problems with Puig. Doesn't sound like much chemistry to me.

QUOTE (blackmooncreeping @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 08:45 PM) Exactly! You beat me to it, was just about to post the 'how long before a cage match breaks out between Puig and Lawrie'...good stuff Cheers to that! I know Puig is a big boy but Lawrie is intense like a cage fighter, I wouldn't want Lawrie pissed me. Glad he's on the Sox, look out Royals!

QUOTE (blackmooncreeping @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 08:35 PM) Puig has warts galore, not going to give up Quintana for him. Or any starting pitcher for that matter; for all the talk of moving Danks, unless you have a viable replacement in the plan via either signing a FA or making a 2nd trade to replace the 180 innings Danks eats up, Sox just can't afford to lose any starting pitching. Hell, they're already keeping their fingers crossed that EJ can eat up the majority of Shark's near 200 innings last season, and that's far from a sure thing. Well, I did say "remotely possible". Honestly man, I wanted nothing to do with Puig when his name came up at the deadline last season and that hasn't changed. Too much baggage comes with Puig and IMO, he's part of the reason Greinke didn't stick around LA. Hmmmmm. Greinke and Puig will face off at some point during the season or maybe even in ST, could be interesting.

QUOTE (CyAcosta41 @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 08:28 PM) As they say in the legal biz, "I concur." (Actually, I've never said that while in the legal biz, or anywhere else, until just this moment.) Puig would invariably cost at one of Anderson, Fulmer, Adams, plus X. The 28th pick in this year's draft is unlikely to be the equal of any of those players, plus, all three of them are closer to the proverbial show than Mr. 2016-28. And yes -- I also understand that sacrificing that pick ALSO has overall pool implications. And then, for this White Sox team at this time, I'd rather have Fowler than Puig (particularly because the "Puig experience" brings more in a somewhat negative sense than just Puig the player). Locking down a grinding OBP machine like Fowler is just what this team needs -- certainly for the next two years. Fowler. -or- Jackson plus Desmond. I'd prefer either route to Puig. Agree with what you say here Cy and I would like to add to it. Puig is coming off of a down hear and I know these things happen but when factoring in what Kershaw and the Van Slyke's have said about Puig along with the nonsense of pushing his sister. I just have to say no thanks. Doesn't sound like much of a fit with the likes of Abreu and Frazier. On a side note. Let's say the Sox did trade for Puig. How many games into the season would the Sox make it before Puig and Lawrie got into a brawl? I can see those two clashing in a big way. I think it's best for the Sox to stick to the ideas of Fawler, Desmond, Ethier and Jackson as possibilities. I like the idea of Saladino getting a shot at SS but I kinda like the idea of adding Ethier and Desmond too.

The only way I could see this being remotely possible would be something like Q for Puig/Wood.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 07:57 PM) Lol Rogers suggest maybe targeting BJ Upton. D'OH!!!

Ya, much rather sign Fowler and give up the pick than trade good prospects for Puig. ^that sentence was purposely NOT written in green^ Thank you, for your support.

So why did you write the article Merkin? Was your favorite show on The Masterbation Network an old re-run?

QUOTE (hi8is @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 05:56 PM) Can we keep poop on the bench? We can, but Poop Flambé plays his best position at the front door on a warm and humid summer's night.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 01:39 PM) He's probably better suited for RF than Fowler. It all might be moot, but I really think the Sox will sign Fowler. I think raBBit's post below bolsters the idea of Eaton to RF in the event the Sox sign Fowler. QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 01:42 PM) Eaton had a shoulder injury last year that messed with his arm. He had a clean up surgery at the beginning of the offseason. Eaton has a terribly difficult time playing at USCF. He can't pick up the ball for whatever reason. He's worked with multiple different coaches, tried different glasses, etc. Not sure what they'd do if they signed Fowler, but there's a rationale for Eaton moving to RF even if he's the better defender of the two. I remember you mentioned this earlier in the off season about Eaton having trouble picking up the ball in CF last season. Maybe a move to RF would help? ST would help Eaton adjust to RF but there's no way to know if he will pick up the ball better until he's in RF at USCF. It's an interesting scenario if the Sox were to sign Fowler.