FT35

QUOTE (Jack Parkman @ Feb 9, 2018 -> 03:25 PM) That trade was more about clearing Frazier/Robertson off the books, Whether we'd like to believe it or not, I think that the return was affected by it being a combination of Robertson/Frazier/Kahnle rather than Kahnle alone. Truly believe that because of the money with the other two guys, they got less. I think we could have finagled Sheffield or Andujar without them having to take on Frazier and Robertson's money. For some reason clearing them from the books was more important to Hahn than the extra prospect. Right--NY picked up all the $ owed to these guys as well. If given the choice, I'd probably rather add another decent prospect to make the deal look better, but the $ off the books stands as value--just the word "cash" doesn't have the same ring to it as "Andujarrrr." I cringed a little too at first glance, but what I liked about it was that Hahn was able to squeeze another (at the time) top 30 prospect out of the remaining pieces that we had--which many of us didn't think would be possible--AND moved the $ tied to them.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Feb 9, 2018 -> 11:41 AM) I disagree. Like I said, the real value of that trade was Kahnle. Robertson was good but was still owed a lot of money, and Frazier was...well, Todd Frazier. Time will tell with Rutherford and even Tito Polo. Maybe the Sox could have gotten a little more, but definitely not a lot more. Agree with you...can't ROB every team on every deal. We maybe could have gotten a little more but in the end, the players who needed moved from our team got moved and not another team's--and Rutherford is in our system instead of another team's. Our team moved closer to our goal with the deal.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 8, 2018 -> 10:27 AM) Teams like the Yankees, Dodgers and Tigers not spending is killing it. Exactly. I simply don't see why the players are so surprised that there hasn't been much activity on the FA market this winter. Honestly, I think agents should have seen this slow winter coming a few years back in their databases. All of the facts line up with prudent business rather than owner coercion like the players and agents have suggested. I'm sorry, I don't think choosing to hold my FA money back on a 3B like Moustakas for a historically loaded FA class next year that includes Donaldson, Arenado and Machado is anything but smart management of risk/funds. Let the super 7 (NYY, BOS, LA, CHC, HOU, WAS, CLE) fight over a 1-year deal with Moose (which he'll likely hold out for more years) and then them battle it out for the 2018 WS title--THEN go all in on a player(s) who can make a much larger impact next winter. Smart business. Surprise teams always have the trade deadline to make a move if elevated success puts them into the same conversation as MLB's elite teams for a playoff push. They simply don't need to sign anyone now.

QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Feb 7, 2018 -> 04:41 PM) I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see us be a bottom 3 team next year, I'm just banking on most of our young core take incremental steps forward this year, as well as solid debuts from Kopech and Eloy. Absolutely possible and likely! I think we will be a very bad team—one of the worst records in MLB, but we play 60 games against bad teams who we beat at a .500 clip last year when we were awful and they were not rebuilding. Comparing last year’s apples to this year’s oranges, maybe! But logically, it’s conceivable to win 30+ games vs. KC, Det & Min. Of the remaining 100, I think it’s possible to win 40 (7 games vs Pit and Cin). If I remember correctly when I crunched those numbers a while back, 72 wins would’ve put us around the 8th worst record by last year’s standings. Lots more teams going the rebuild route this year too. Who knows...it’s fun to speculate!

QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Feb 7, 2018 -> 02:57 PM) 73 wins is right around what I was thinking as well. 72-73. Me too! I even took some crap on here for posting that I thought it was possible for us to win 72-75 games. I think one of these sites (ZiPS?) projected just over 60 wins and I think that's considerably lower than where they will be. There are too many horrific teams in our division to only win 60 games.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 01:56 PM) Just be sure you have a replacement for September and October. Oh now this is good! Unfortunately for us...now Boston...it's very true... Of course he's only had 1 shot at the post season but he's starting to carry that first-half hero tag. If he helps get his team into the playoffs, he'll likely help get them out of the playoffs as well...

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jan 30, 2018 -> 01:48 PM) You're clearly misinterpreting what I'm saying if you think I'm saying, "I'm not offended so it's wrong to change it!" I'm not trying to make an argument for keeping it or anything and I'm not making it about what I believe. I'm simply saying in a hypothetical scenario if no one from that race was/is offended, should it be considered offensive? Kinda going back to what the poster above said about changing the school's name in his region where they checked with the tribe who stated they weren't offended by it at all. I would say no. Edit: I think Cleveland should come up with a new name for it's baseball team in general, especially if they can't even use the logo nor mascot. Bring back the Cleveland Spiders. And I think you are hitting on some key points. If it's important to a particular group, let them come forward and make their voices heard and let's all work together to find a solution so the new name can reflect resolution by 2 sides to extinguish something felt as racism. But don't go forging ahead supercharged with racist claims and completely leave out the group that's supposed to be offended from the resolution or assume they want it to be changed. And honestly, there is great strength in the Native American population to fight and win a battle like this. They don't NEED help...but you better bet if they set out to end slurs like that and ran into injustice in their attempts, THAT'S WHEN they would gain steam from the silent majority who would rise and fight with them until a resolution was found that kept the intended integrity and honor in place. The renaming of the school in THIS case, turned out to be a solution in search of a problem. The school story ended like this: the kids in the school voted on 3 finalist names and the Native American tribes got to choose the winning name--the name Legends was chosen in reference to the Native Americans--to keep the honor in tact, but to drop the Redskins phrase that some could find as derogatory. But honestly, no one really came out "ahead" because no one was super offended by the name to begin with--and all it did was raise our taxes to help fund the re-branding of the school! I'm ALL for working together to better the place we live, and no one wants anyone to live in a state of suppression or as the object of racism. Let's just make sure we're fighting the real fights out there and not dumping our resources into a small, unrelated group of people who are piggy backing on a minority by self-creating drama so they can have something to post about on their social media pages that riles everyone up. Ladies and Gentlemen...THOSE are the truly divisive people--as their number 1 goal is to create or increase division rather than bringing people together. Don't fall for it...get the truth, the real story from both sides and see if there's even a problem! Many times there isn't. There are better ways to allocate valuable resources than dumping them into something that doesn't stand to produce true gain.

My dad fought this battle last year as the president of his high school alumni here in town. They were formerly known as the Redskins. He scheduled meetings with the Native American groups in the area whom the school's name originated from to get their thoughts so he could communicate their perspective accurately to the school board and was surprised to hear that the Native Americans themselves had no issue with the name and actually saw it as an honor that, to that point, the community had upheld the name of the school despite this modern day outrage. Dad said the perception that more than one of the Native Americans left him with was wondering why such a small group of individuals were so offended and had so much power to remove the name that didn't offend the people they thought it should. 2 quotes from those meetings that stuck out were 1. "Isn't this our battle to fight?" and 2. "Fight with, not for." They also noted that none of the offended met with them to get their thoughts prior to fighting against the name. Kind of interesting. Results differ across the map, I'm sure, as there are some Native Americans who might actually be offended--and they should absolutely be heard, but that is how things went down here in Indiana. The name was ultimately changed despite the input from the Native American groups who the school was named after to "please the masses" that, in reality, were neither masses or the Native Americans themselves, but the perception of such by those who were a part of that political movement.

This really comes down to the essence of today's game: 1. How do you get better and 2. how do you win consistently. 1. How do you get better--you have a choice. You can trade something away or go out and take a chance on a mediocre Free Agent--that chance will cost you 10's of millions of dollars and like everything else, there are no guarantees. 2. How do you win consistently? You have to create a winning culture that is built on both talent and chemistry. You can do that by rolling the dice on free agents all coming together at the right time and having career years at the same time--AND PERFORMING IN THE POST SEASON at the same time, or you can build a core of young talent and work them up to the big leagues together and raise your probability of a 5-7 year period of above normal winning rates. The costs of these choices are tough to compare, because in the rebuilding model, a good chunk of what you're saving in player salary, you're losing in team revenue because no one wants to watch a lame product. In my opinion, it's Boras who has destroyed the game and forced the owners' hands to go cheap. Look how owners handle pending free agents...they trade them! They don't want anything to do with them--they'd rather get some prospects for them then have to deal with the whole risk involved in resigning a star player with equal bust potential as the next guy. Rebuilding is a more practical road to sustaining long-term winning. 100 million dollars goes a long way in the rebuilding model. In the contending model, it buys you 1 player for a few years. Obviously, we are passionate baseball/White Sox fans, but if you were a GM where baseball was your business 1st and passion second, and you were trying to change the course of an organization from a product enhancement standpoint, and you had a relatively short leash on your job to accomplish it, how would you do it? 1. Spend a ton of $ over a 10+ year period trying to find the right combinations of Scott Boras' free agents (players who your fans have likely been rooting against for years) year after year and have 1 playoff appearance to show for it (aka the model that had the White Sox dead in the water)? OR...do you wipe the slate clean and rebuild for a period of 3-4 years and set yourself up for a 5-7 year run of winning with a young core of internally developed players that fans have watched grow up and become winners--making them more attached to your product? If Boras would like the game to get back to the way it was, then he needs to make his model seem more practical to owners. Obviously he's set for life and money will NEVER be an issue for him as long as he lives, but MLB owners are HIS clients...he needs to decide whether the mega contracts model brings more revenue than if he would to make free agents more obtainable by lowering the risk for owners building a winning model around them.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 17, 2018 -> 10:18 AM) His best chance of getting out of there is to shut up, and play really well so some team will meet the Marlins price . Pouting and playing the game he is playing is doing no one any good. There is zero chance the Marlins dump him for a discounted package right now. And the longer he pouts and makes his displeasure publically known, the more teams are turned off.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 17, 2018 -> 10:07 AM) man, did the Marlins completely torpedo his value or what? Everyone knows the Marlins are trying to move him and now he doesnt want to be there anymore, they cant be shopping top shelf. What a disastrous first offseason for jeets No joke. I guess it’s why they say “good jobs rarely become available.” It’s safe to say, he walked into a raging mess...

QUOTE (mac9001 @ Jan 10, 2018 -> 11:40 PM) It would make for good TV if they just randomly throw a new guy out there every 5th day. Cody Asche.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jan 9, 2018 -> 01:21 PM) im shocked about vizquel. guess 11 gold gloves dont mean as much as i thought?? I love Vizquel—just not sure the Gold Gloves carry the same weight as someone who won several gold gloves AND had the silver slugger/batting/power numbers to go with it. To me, he’s a HOF miss but that will not define his career. Instead, those who followed his career will remember him as a defensive wizard on par with Ozzie Smith (just a quiet version with no flare), and one of the most underrated offensive forces of his time simply because he didn’t hit HRs. Considering how most scouts believed his offensive skill set would be insufficient at the MLB level when he came into the league, his sustained achievement was a major surprise. To me, that’s what defines him.

QUOTE (Moncada @ Jan 7, 2018 -> 02:31 PM) I would say 75-100 wins bc our division is gonna be awful. Our pitching should be getting better and better You know...as much as I chuckled at the top end of this prediction, I do think it’s possible for us to overachieve from a win/loss perspective solely due to our division being so weak. Zips has us at 61 wins and I think that doesn’t account for the shear volume of games we will play against teams who are just as bad. We have 2 other declining/rebuilding (KC & Det) teams that we will play nearly 40 times...we’ll also have another large chunk against a Twins team who I think will come back to earth a little from last year. That’s almost 60 games...if we split those 60 and win 30, we’d only have to play .400 ball (.414 last year) in the remaining 100 games to win 70 overall. Don’t get me wrong, i think we will be bad—but starting to think 75 wins isn’t a pipe dream. Using last year’s standings, 75 wins would have put us 20th/21st overall...that’s still good for a top-10 (or so) pick, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we win ourselves out of the top 5 with our schedule.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 01:29 PM) It's not that they don't know what they're doing, it's more about not having the endless job security that comes with being a Reinsdorf front office. Some GMs are going to have much less leeway to be patient and will need to pick a direction to appease their owners. I can see that...

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 01:06 PM) Again, not disagreeing with anything your saying, but not every front office is going to be as patient as Hahn was. Nothing that Jeter & his staff could do would surprise me at this point. I don’t know...I’m not sure it’s wise to think that other GMs besides Hahn and a few others are not patient and know what they are doing. There are a few who need to go, but this day in age, the model for success has been illustrated and executed enough, that it takes the thinking part out for most GM’s. They know the nuances of their jobs just like we know ours. Now that it’s been proven that there’s an art to rebuilding, you’re going to see teams model theirs after what’s worked before you see a true fire sale where GMs essentially give away their organizational assets for nothing. I just think those days are behind us.

QUOTE (KnightsOnMintSt @ Jan 4, 2018 -> 06:49 PM) The only reason that I would throw him in is because I am so high on Giolito, Kopech, Hansen and Lopez. I think there simply just wont be room for Cease by the time he is MLB ready. And if that is true, it would be a good idea to deal him sooner before the White Sox have no leverage left with him. Obviously a good "problem" to have. I have a feeling if Cease truly broke out and reached his potential, it would be someone else in our rotation who would be the odd man out.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2018 -> 03:32 PM) Phil Rogers arguing for the White Sox and Yelich https://www.mlb.com/news/christian-yelich-w...sox/c-264272478 I’d do these 3 players: 1. Rodon (injury prone, Boras agent, will be an expensive risk to resign.) 2. Rutherford (5th or 6th OFer for us if we got Yelich—Yelich, Jimenez, Avi, Robert, Delmonico?) 3. Basabe (further back in the OF mix than Rutherford—has a lot of developing to do and we don’t develop hitters well.) If this isn’t enough, either agree to take on a vet salary or say goodbye—no increasing the exiting prospect talent.

QUOTE (soxforlife05 @ Dec 22, 2017 -> 04:37 PM) Interesting I wonder if he calls his own pitches since he was a catcher. Nicely done with this thought.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 09:49 AM) Anyway I'm not sure why people aren't more glad that we don't have to make this choice for a rental. Also, to yellich - the market this year has been really terrible toward sellers. So sniff around, but we just need to wait. I don't see it getting much better for sellers next year, as what made it so special for the white sox was striking when all the top teams also had the top farms. Their arms race last year depleted that with the white sox getting the most gains. This is what happens when the main buyers are the Giants, Angels and Dbacks, three teams with terrible farms. Excellent point...the stars were certainly aligned in many ways.

QUOTE (InTheDriversSeat @ Dec 20, 2017 -> 02:02 PM) I see the right knee hitting the padded wall, not the box. The box appears to be a few inches behind the wall (not even with the wall), therefore both legs make contact with the wall. When he makes impact with the wall, his left arm reaches out far enough so his left hand is in front of the box. If had struck the box initially, his body would be obstructing view of the box, but actually his body (except for his left hand) is to the right side of the box. . I think this explains it.

QUOTE (InTheDriversSeat @ Dec 20, 2017 -> 02:02 PM) I see the right knee hitting the padded wall, not the box. The box appears to be a few inches behind the wall (not even with the wall), therefore both legs make contact with the wall. When he makes impact with the wall, his left arm reaches out far enough so his left hand is in front of the box. If had struck the box initially, his body would be obstructing view of the box, but actually his body (except for his left hand) is to the right side of the box. . To the replay: In the frozen frame here you can see the knee making contact with the box and the box at a slight angle back from the impact. I'm sure Fowler's camp is saying that the box being at the angle is proof of the knee hitting the box itself. I'm sure the GRF legal staff is arguing that of course the box would move--it was attached to the protective padding--which his knee hit as it was designed to--CAUSING the box to slightly move. To me...this logic makes the replay inconclusive from a legal standpoint--as it's not conclusive that the box didn't move from the top of the padding it was attached to--which was being moved by Fowler's knee. I watch too much Law and Order...

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 19, 2017 -> 08:48 AM) This entire thread is built on the premise Baltimore would be giving Machado away for practically nothing. Ha. That or "who could give up the most for a 1-year rental."

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 18, 2017 -> 03:43 PM) No offense, but this all comes off as a Cubs fanboy circle jerk. What do you mean "if he finds a way to dump those salaries"? Heyward is unmovable at this point, I don't care what kind of magician you think he is. Lester is probably going to be unmovable soon enough, but let's say he isn't, then who replaces him in the rotation exactly? The Cubs have almost no internal pitching talent at the moment. And I'm not sure how you think Theo is going to convince the Ricketts to spend more than they're comfortable with or what their debt load allows. Again, what the Red Sox were able or willing to do has nothing to do with the Cubs. The Ricketts are simply not going to commit to three massive long-term contracts, way too risky for an ownership group that recently had to sell equity in the team to ensure enough on-going cash flow. None taken. However, I've NEVER been a Cubs fan...only posted White Sox content on this board for a couple years now...others can attest. Fan since 1991 and nothing will ever change that. I don't like the Cubs, and not a huge Theo fan, but you can't just wave your fist at him and say he isn't one of if not THE best GM in American sports currently because it feels better as a Sox fan saying that. It's like saying someone is a Patriots fanboy circle jerk for saying Tom Brady is good at football. Theo is off-the-charts good at what he does and you don't have to be a fan of his to admit that. It's simply recognizing talent and acknowledging when someone has the skills to pull off something spectacular. Yes, what he did with the Red Sox is relevant now--he took a franchise who hadn't won for nearly a century and turned them into a near dynasty. Now, he's done the same in Chicago and it's time to recognize the man knows what he's doing! Pointing out him doing it with the 2 most lost franchises first requires referring to the previous franchise--that would be Boston! You're right...everything was different about the way both did it...but the constant was Theo Epstein. I'm sorry, I bleed southside, but I'm not out of line for seeing that he is one of the great GMs of our time and things that seem impossible to us are not only possible to him, but happening. Like the CUBS, of all teams, winning a world series...and positioning themselves for more. You might be right about the Ricketts family--I don't know them personally, but I know baseball and I know we're in an age where superteams are not only "in" but becoming common. There are a handful of them in the NBA already, the Yankees just took a giant leap towards that with the Stanton trade and baseball is already top heavy with the same handful of teams near the top of the revenue standings each year. We're headed in that direction because the market favors those teams. To stay relevant in the sports market, you need to stay current in positioning your franchise's brand in ways that correspond with how people consume a franchise's brand. Superteams are the sparkle in every major endorsement's eye. How much do you hear about the Portland Trailblazers and Toronto Raptors? More than Cleveland, Golden State or OKC?? All are comparable from a market size and win loss records...what's the difference? 3 are super teams and 2 are not...3 get the mega-sized endorsements, all the prime time TV slots, millions more in jersey sales and all licensed merch sales...superteams sell brands better than wins--and I'm not too sure they don't get the edge in actual game-play officiating calls. KC Royals won back-to-back pennants as a non-superteam and you KNOW it was driving major endorsement-hungry brands crazy. The Washington Nationals haven't won jack and they blow KC away from a revenue perspective (Washington 10th, KC 25th) because of the Bryce Harper, Strasburg, Scherzer megastar collection. If you're Nike, do you use Bryce Harper or Salvador Perez in your ad campaigns? If you're ESPN, do you show Royals vs White Sox or Yankees vs Red Sox (8 times)? All I'm saying is that Theo will keep up with the Jones'. He knows he needs to make a splash soon because Kyle Schwarber getting into shape isn't near the headline as Yankees acquire Giancarlo Stanton to go with Aaron Judge. He probably spends his time thinking more about names such as Manny Machado and Bryce Harper than you think.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 18, 2017 -> 02:45 PM) Theo may not care about the luxury tax, but the Ricketts sure as s*** do. How the Red Sox operated has nothing to do with how the Cubs operate. Also, the Cubs had nearly $100M in 2019 payroll commitments to like six players before they recently added a couple more relievers. Add in all their arbitration eligible players and that number is going to quickly skyrocket. Add in a hypothetical $75M for Machado & Harper and they’ll be well over the luxury tax. And I’m sure the Ricketts would love having three large, long-term contracts on their books at the same time. No risk there based on how the first one is shaking out. Lester and Heyward are almost half that $100M. If he finds a way to dump those 2 salaries like I was saying, he's virtually replacing them with Harper and Machado. The number $30-$40M/each was being used for both these guys. Using $30M per you're replacing $54M (Lester/Heyward/Zobrist) with $60-65M (Machado/Harper). Only reason I brought Red Sox into it is to give some historical perspective. Theo found a way to convince that ownership...and it paid off. I honestly think Ricketts has good reason to trust Theo Epstein. I don't know...his track record kind of warrants it. Not saying it would happen...it's just not THAT far-fetched of an idea for a deep-pocket team to take a chance on 2 guys like Machado and Harper and still be about $30-35M behind the Dodgers--who by the way have seen the monetary benefit of a payroll that high or they wouldn't have approved it. I know we all don't want to see the Cubs get these guys, but it's not that far from reality...they are in the position to do it whether we like it or not.