bighurt574

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Mar 18, 2016 -> 12:12 PM) Bob NightengaleVerified account ‏@BNightengale 1h1 hour ago Player rep Adam Eaton said Adam LaRoche had clause in contract to allow son and players union now involved #whitesox Thats sure what it sounds like he is saying to me. Ah, thanks. I was reading another tweet that was vaguer than that one. Like someone else said, if there is a clause, it would be a bit bizarre if the Sox gave up complete control over the clubhouse. It could easily have at least some qualifiers in there.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Mar 18, 2016 -> 12:04 PM) What does it matter what they say? Eaton, the player rep and vocal defender of LaRoche said LaRoche told him its written in the contract. That's not really what Eaton said. He said there was an agreement. He didn't say it was in writing, unless I missed it. Obviously, you can have oral contracts too. They're just harder to enforce. If there is a provision in the written contract, I doubt it gives LaRoche unlimited discretion in that regard. That would be sort of foolish for the Sox to agree to.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Mar 18, 2016 -> 11:23 AM) 1) Kenny said there wasn't. So now someone is lying, but we can't take either for fact. 2) The clause could very well say "Drake LaRoche is welcome in the clubhouse", not "Drake LaRoche has unlimited access to White Sox facilities" For what it's worth, saying there's a contractual agreement isn't necessarily the same thing as saying it's in writing.

I went OF trade, but none of these options look super appealing. The other option is to just go into the season basically with what we have and if we're playing well, fill the holes before the trade deadline. Maybe a couple prospects will improve their trade value by then too.

QUOTE (kevo880 @ Jan 21, 2016 -> 04:21 PM) I think it's extremely likely that we don't end up getting him, but my bet is that they are giving it their best shot. I bet they're giving it a shot, but I also bet we're nowhere close to whatever he ends up getting from someone else.

If the Sox are sticking at 3 years, we're not landing Cespedes.

The case for a one-year deal is that next year's FA class is weak, and maybe some of the traditional big spenders get involved. A two-year deal would be interesting with the stacked FA class, not sure that's a great idea.

QUOTE (dpd9189 @ Jan 12, 2016 -> 12:53 PM) Just to play Devil's Advocate, if the price for Cespedes/Upton eventually does come down in the 2-3 yr range then there will be teams that aren't interested now jump in the mix. Yep. I'm skeptical a guy like Cespedes falls into our lap by default. If his price really drops, we're going to have a lot more competition and I doubt we come out ahead at that point. If we're going to land him, we'll need to put a solid offer out there that keeps the competition on the sidelines. We don't seem willing to do that, at this point.

We're not going to steal Chicago, but if both teams are serious playoff contenders for a stretch, it would certainly help boost our attendance, etc. Chicago has been a pretty miserable baseball town the past 10 years, for the most part. It's starting to pick back up, at least on the North Side. Hopefully down South as well.

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 06:28 PM) It's funny that people see how the market has changed over the past 3-5 years & say what you quoted. Teams make more & the price of players have gone up substantially. In the near future, the White Sox will spend on a big contract & this free agent market is the one to do it in if they are truly "all in". Don't get me wrong, it will obviously happen eventually. I'll believe it when I see it, though. Would love to land one of these guys. I'm just not getting my hopes up. Was our offer to Tanaka ever revealed? A big offer doesn't mean a whole lot if you get outbid by $50 million.

I'll believe we're willing to give out a nine-figure deal when I see it. For any of these OFs.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Dec 17, 2015 -> 10:47 AM) They can make a big bat fit. Close to 30 mill of LaRoche and Danks off the books after this season can make it happen. That's what it seems like. A bunch of these guys who have already signed took less in year one (Heyward included, I believe). Hopefully one of these big bats would be willing to do the same.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Dec 9, 2015 -> 04:52 PM) http://www.csnbayarea.com/athletics/source...de-talks-lawrie Just saw this. Don't know if it's been posted yet Pretty big "snag" if the teams can't agree on the prospects. Isn't that the entire trade? Doesn't sound like a deal is all that close, really.

I don't know how we'd ever get equal value for Sale right now. I'd try to build a team around him for another year or two. If that's not going well two years from now, we could still get a major haul for him then (assuming he's healthy). Not much reason to give up the next year or two of Sale unless some crazy offer comes along.

Isn't every team looking for young, cost controlled talent?

Certainly possible, but it took him this long to figure it out?

I'm baffled that folks are still pegging him for a 4 year, $75-80 million deal, but there's still little risk he'd accept a QO.

I have no idea how you compare across eras. In 1908, Walsh went 40-15 with a 1.42 ERA over 464 innings.

Given our team needs, Q really needs to be shopped this offseason. I'd love to keep him, but if we can get two legit everyday players back, I think we're a better team for it. A Sale trade isn't going to happen. Might be more realistic in a year or two if the Sox are still muddling along, and we'd still be able to get a nice return then. No point trading him now, it would be almost impossible to get enough value back.

Too many bad starts. Those back-to-back 7 run starts were killers. He'd need to finish the season on another crazy run to have any shot.

Trying to find cash parking was a nightmare yesterday. Got there an hour early, got routed all over the place for an hour and eventually to the remote lot where there was a huge line for the buses (how long have they had remote parking over there?), ultimately ended up just finding a street spot past IIT on 35th. Missed the whole first inning. Now I know why I usually take the red line. It was probably my fault, but I was so ticked.

Standing pat was probably the right move. For buying, I wouldn't give up our better prospects as a gamble on this year's team, especially with how much some of the other potential wildcard teams improved themselves. For selling, hard to say without knowing what we could have gotten for Samardzija. I do hope we didn't turn down a significant offer for him.

I did at least like the idea of the Cubs eating Danks' contract.

The race seems pretty wide open, depends on who has a big second half. Felix is really coming on strong, although his FIP is still lagging.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 10:26 AM) I think shortstop might be in the mix as well as outfielder and starting pitching. Bottom line, this org is never shy about acquiring pitching so if they get the right pitching prospect, I am sure they'd be more then willing to take it. I still think to really get back to 2016, one of Q / Sale needs to go (counter-intuitive, sure, but bottom line, we need some stellar young position talent and those are the guys that can get you multiple impact pieces). You then have more risk on the rotation, however, we have a few more chips their and a much better track record of success. We have so many holes, we can almost just target the best available positional prospects we can get.