SoxFan562004

I saw it in one of the stories threads, but weren't the Reds one of the teams mentioned that were in on him?

1-1 I have directv... only finding game on Spanish station, is that it?

Girardi back to NYY... Cubs will have to find another distraction for the fans.

I am by no means a supporter of A-Rod, but his suit does call out Uncle Bud for turning a blind eye towards PEDs due to $$, which I 100% agree with and with his retirement announcement I think that was way underplayed. It's probably underplayed because the media basically whiffed on it too. It was obvious something was going on, people were talking about it, and for the most part, the main-stream media just completely ignored it. And yes, my friends and I joked about it all the time how juiced the guys were during the mid to late 90's, so I'm not just a johnny come lately or hindsight is 20/20 guy. Anyone who had any familiarity with fitness knew that the gains those guys were getting, either in the short time period, at that age or a combination of both were basically impossible without PEDs.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 28, 2013 -> 11:17 AM) Sveum is just a place holder. Theo didn't want his WS winning genius to go through the lows of rebuilding. There will still be plent of lows for the Cubs. They still need a lot of talent, especially in pitching, and they're in an extremely competitive division.

It's funny because just last week I was thinking who the next distraction "Savior" will be for the Cubs, and wouldn't you know it Giraddi's (sp?) name is now being thrown around. Shiny object for Cubs fans to focus on.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9612138/...concussion-suit Concussion suit settled pending Judge's approval

QUOTE (zenryan @ Aug 2, 2013 -> 11:03 PM) that is the key. if he can be playing on a regular basis then yes but for whatever reason the market wasnt there for him. the most important thing is for him to be playing full games going into Brazil. for someone of his age and experience, i dont think this move is the worst thing in the world. he's done growing as a player. he's going to be 31 by the time the World Cup starts so this is his final WC and maybe cycle. I definitely agree he's probably not going to change much as a player, my thought is more on a "steel sharpening steel" track. I just think the jump from MLS games to the USMNT is going to be extreme. Hats off to him though for pulling it off, he gets to live in the U.S. and get paid top dollar, can totally see why he did it.

Looks like Dempsey is headed back to MLS, to Seattle specifically. From USMNT perspective, I don't like this. I think there needs to be a mix and not every player from national team should be in the best leagues, better to play important role in lesser league than rot on the bench, however, Dempsey is a world class player and should be playing against world class talent on a regular basis, he won't get that in MLS.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 28, 2013 -> 12:14 PM) The White Sox though are locked into their TV deals for a long, long time. 2019 is when they supposedly come up for renegotiation. The White Sox ownership group is supposedly a part owner of CSN Chicago, so they pull a little bit of it back as an investment that way. I'm pretty sure it's not supposedly, I believe the Hawks, Bulls (JR face of both, but different ownership groups), Sox and Cubs are owners of it, hence no more Fox Sports Chicago, it's why they did it. I would imagine they get a cut of the profits. I could be wrong, so if anybody is more familiar with the CSN situation I'd be interested in hearing more on how it works.

QUOTE (joeynach @ Mar 28, 2013 -> 10:29 AM) Since Forbes just released their valuation of all MLB's franchises something interesting popped out to me. It's the fact that the White Sox have high payroll and relatively high revenue, and what we all know, woeful attendance. So does that mean another longtime generational standing tradition of baseball, that is, attendance & ticket sales equate to revenue & thus payroll a complete and utter myth. Forbes says the White Sox are the 11th most valuable franchise in MLB, worth $692M. Their revenue last year was $216M, good for 14th in MLB, their operating Income last year was $22.9M, good for tied for 9th in MLB, yes their attendance last year was a tick below 2M and good for 24th in MLB (was 2M in 2011, good for 20th). However, their payroll was $118M, good for 7th highest in the league ($129M in '11 good for 5th). So at the organizational level there must be an explanation. We know a few tidbits that help keep expenses low and thus operating income high; they pay just $1.5 million in fixed rent plus $3-7 for every ticket sold above annual attendance of 1.9 million at U.S. Cellular Field, but keep all ticket, parking, concessions, signage and merchandise revenue. Ok, so that helps, but they have to be doing something fundamentally different, something that really does break the myth that high revenue's and payroll's are dependent upon good attendance. So what is it? They have excellent marketing? They have a crazy amount of luxury suites contracted out? They get a ton of money from Radio and TV? They get the most of any team from ballpark signage? Im really just picking at straws here. Many of the points you made are correct. Sox have an AWESOME deal for the ballpark and the various things you mention in the last paragraph. I'm not sure why it took the Forbes article to bust this myth as the Sox have consistently had a top 10-15 payroll and never had consistent attendance. I don't know enough about economics, but would the fact that this ownership group probably has zero debt, outside what they need for various year to year operations, since they bought the club for 20m and it's worth an insane amount more help boost their value?

Love PK, but Frank was an absolute force, I think the steroid era might have clouded some people's judgement on how dominant Frank was in his prime. No brainer it's Frank for me.

I've never understood the Sox are cheap as the arguments posters have made above show this team does spend, but I've also never understood the "we're poor" thing from the Sox either. Wow, I know it's not a pure/simple math equation since ownership has changed and JR has bought more stakes over the years, but JR and his group bought them for what, 20m? Maybe this isn't the right thread to bring this up in, but is there a hint of a succession plan for when JR passes away if he doesn't sell prior? Not to be macabre, but JR is getting older, is there an heir apparent? I honestly think with it being in the 3rd major media market and the prices thrown around for other teams sold and the groups lined up wanting to own an MLB team, if the White Sox went up for sale today they'd beat the $692

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Mar 12, 2013 -> 07:26 PM) FWIW, the identities of the lower distribution of graph 2: 2011 Royals 2011 Rockies 2010 Indians 2012 Blue Jays 2012 Mariners 2011 Twins 2010 Cubs So not all perennial losers with highly-rated systems. I may be, and probably am, wrong about my working theory. Back to the drawing board. I think a lot probably has to do with the teams philosophy going into ST. Even if you're a pretty crappy MLB team without a great farm system but you say, have new owners or GM and/or manager on a hot seat you may want to create a buzz around your team in the local or national media. So, and yeah, I'm over simplifying this, a team would just basically a team can play their regulars later into games. Often, especially early on in ST, a team could probably do well playing roughly their regular 25 a majority of the game.

Risky with any pitcher, but this is still a big market club with a decent size payroll, totally love the risk here.

Apparently in prepping him to be an announcer for matches, somebody told Gus Johnson "in the area" is an important soccer term. I've watched one game and sixteen minutes of the MU-RM game and he constantly says it anytime a ball is near one of the goals. Don't play a drinking game based on it, you will get sick.

QUOTE (Elgin Slim @ Feb 15, 2013 -> 01:02 PM) http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/white-sox/...st-session#more Danks' velocity down, how much we don't know. If he is throwing under 90 sox are in big trouble with the contract. I think he doesn't have the command to reinvent himself as Mark Buehrle. I'm sure 99% of all pitchers in baseball velocity is down right now, it's February. Do you want Danks, or any other pitcher on the Sox staff, whipping the ball with all their might at this time? Not saying Sox and Danks are out of the wood on this, but this article, to me, is far more encouraging than discouraging

QUOTE (Jake @ Feb 11, 2013 -> 09:41 AM) I know that he's rich and everything, but Mark is a good guy and he gets kind of screwed here. I assume that the reports that he was "promised" not to be traded are true, and now he has to be apart from his family because the Marlins negotiated in bad faith. I wouldn't be shocked if Buehrle asks out of Toronto before long. Doesn't make much sense at this juncture, but I'd be happy to see him be a White Sox someday again. He took the extra year with Marlins instead of a no or limited trade clause. He is a good guy, but it's business and he made a decision, I personally wouldn't put it in the "screwed" category.

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 4, 2012 -> 09:21 PM) As anti as I am about them getting in, I would like to see a display of the steroid era or even expanded to notorious players. Don't ignore it, acknowledge it. Mention the players and their accomplishments. It would be an exhibit, but the players would not be HoF members. Would the pro Rose and Bond find that acceptable? I always thought the media gets a pass, well because obviously they're the ones telling the story. There were so many obvious signs that something was going down and for the most part it was just ignored or missed, either option is poor journalism IMO.

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Dec 14, 2012 -> 01:10 PM) And there shouldn't be. Like I've said if he relapses into DRUGS then all that will happen is the Angels will be SOL for that year. They'll get their money back because Josh will be gone from the league. LAA is gonna be scary offensively. 3 legit MVP candidates, Morales should be healthier this coming up season and has the potential to put up MVP numbers, and Trumbo has dirty pop. If they add another pitcher they should be the favorites. the union won't just let them dump a standard contract. I imagine he would have chances to go to rehab, etc., it could be relapse recover relapse recovery relapse recovery, and on and on, never enough to drive him out of the league but enough that he hangs around. I do get your point, that there are probably some built-in protections for major relapse, but still surprised they didn't try to get something.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 13, 2012 -> 08:28 PM) Yup. Looks like somebody's leaking information far too early in their FO. Probably AS' people didn't like Detroit's offer and leaked it to the right people in the press...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 13, 2012 -> 04:30 PM) Jon Heyman ‏@JonHeymanCBS hamilton has 4th biggest OF contract in LA: $160M (kemp), $142M (crawford), $126M (wells). and trout may be best of all It will be interesting to see what type of clauses Angels got, I mean there's no way you could give somebody with his history a contract like this without some serious protection.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 13, 2012 -> 02:39 PM) Smart move. I'd rather give that kind of money to an everyday player than Greinke. This may be a dumb question, but why doesn't a big market team like the Cubs try to improve like the Angels and just buy, buy, buy players? Are the Cubs short on money? I can't imagine again how bad that team will be this year. I know they sell out every game no matter what, but I don't see how anybody in their right mind could stand going to see that rotten team play. I'd fall asleep in the stands. Buy buy doesn't always work, Angels have been trying it, and actually raising the bar on it, and haven't won a WS in the recent y ears, it always isn't an guarantee of anything. And y eah, the Cubs are short on money, Ricketts paid agreed at top dollar then the economy flopped, also, he was expecting the State and/or city to bend over backwards to give him money to fix the stadium, and he was literally laughed at by many with his first proposal for Wrigley funding.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 6, 2012 -> 03:56 PM) I'm still shocked they found him guilty, and I can't see it standing up under appeal. I'm actually and unfortunately not shocked he was found guilty. This is the Nancy Grace-ification of our legal system. He was guilty before the trial even started. The 12 jurors weren't going back to their jobs, family and friends after letting him go. I made a guess last night in talking to friends that he would be found guilty on this, even though I don't think there's anywhere near enough evidence to justify it, but get overturned on appeal. I would have to do some research on what exactly got in that was clearly made off-limits pre-trial and see what appeals court have thrown out in the past, but I'll stand by that for now.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 6, 2012 -> 03:17 PM) You mean the wife they a- never proved was murdered and b-certainly didn't prove Drew murdered? This is actually quite terrifying. Do I believe Drew Peterson is a bad dude who probably killed some wives? Sure. Was there indisputable evidence to this fact? Absolutely not. The world changed a bit for the worse today, but I guess that's what appeals are for, right? Seriously, there was nowhere near any amount of evidence to prove Drew Peterson murdered anyone. I didn't follow it as closely as I would have liked to due to being busy as hell, but yeah, I tend to agree with this. I just don't think they had anywhere near enough for a murder conviction. We'll see what happens with the appeal, that could be interesting.