caulfield12

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 07:29 PM) Much like any other business that gets tax breaks and TIF money, etc. Balta, I'm sure would have done the research....but there's a ton out there about the utilitarianism of public stadium construction financing (see Miami/Loria) vs. tax increment financing for underserved/underdeveloped areas of metropolitan areas. I'm not sure how we can have this conversation without going into Filibuster territory, so I'll just leave it that getting taxes waived/TIF is still not the exact equivalent, although they are on the same range or spectrum. When you receive 100% public financing AND you're not in any way accountable to public shareholders, then, as Eminor mentioned, you SHOULD have even more of a responsibility to NOT abuse that trust and provide a quality product. In that sense, the team should "serve the community" not unlike policemen, firefighters or teachers.

The only way to fit our remaining three needs into a $15 million dollar shoe....well, it can't be done without a trade. And it's probably going to mean Rasmus/Aoki and Romo instead of putting all their eggs in the Melky Cabrera basket. Or the likes of Masterson or Brett Anderson. Just happy that Tomas and Markakis and Hunter are no longer options. The problem, though, is that the remaining available money is all chasing after fewer and fewer players. Of course, in the case of Drew and Kendrys Morales, that QO/draft pick compensation worked against them, but I'll believe it when I see it in terms of remaining FA's signing for "rock bottom" or pennies on the dollar prices.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 07:11 PM) Of course they do. If you're a business, you develop a disireable product, then expect it to sell well. If your product sucks, you don't expect people to buy it anyway, in hopes that the company might use the profits to develop a better product you can buy again later. But baseball isn't a business!!! It's uniquely protected by Congress, anti-trust laws, the national pastime, etc. Would communities all over the US build restaurants for McDonald's or Subway? Would they issue municipal bonds or increase hotel/tourism taxes?

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 07:11 PM) Of course they do. If you're a business, you develop a disireable product, then expect it to sell well. If your product sucks, you don't expect people to buy it anyway, in hopes that the company might use the profits to develop a better product you can buy again later. See all the competition and pressure McDonald's is under, for an example. They can't just throw up their arms and complain that Panera, Chipotle, Five Guys, Starbucks are beating them at their own game, etc. Maybe that's not the best analogy, since the White Sox were never a quasi-monopoly. You could compare it to Wendy's innovating to take on Burger King, or equate the White Sox with Olive Garden. There's nothing WRONG with Olive Garden, per se, but it's not new or fresh...no matter how much they change the ambience or restaurant design (see renovations to USCF), the core product and its appeal are always going to be the main consideration. Value. Going to an MLB game (cue emotional shot of Greg bringing in the fall wheat harvest with his young sons) or Olive Garden/Red Lobster used to be worthwhile. Increasingly, the costs and enjoyment have started going in opposite directions, as the economic conditions have forced every family to more closely monitor their entertainment and "eating out" budgeting. Nobody in a million years would line up Chicago and Detroit in the late 90's and believe that with all the economic trends in play, a team from that market would be absolutely dominating the White Sox, looking at how bad the Tigers were for 15-20 years. The problem is that if we know one thing at all, Illitch and JR don't have the same philosophy or reasons for owning a major league franchise.

Let's not forget the one huge negative effect of 2005. Generations of Sox fans finally received their lifelong wish...a championship. With that having been accomplished, something that many never believed would happen, the DESPERATION to witness a trophy being hoisted is long gone. With the Cubs, that wait till next year and 100+ year count since a World Series title and the billy goat and Bartman and the curse of all the failed managers and the curse of Prior/Wood is roughly 50% of their marketing attraction and appeal... We also lost so many fans in the 80's and 90's because of WGN featuring the Cubs and winning over those fans in the Midwest states outside of the Chicago area (well, those who didn't go to or remain with the Cardinals). If Merkin is right, it would be idiotic to have added LaRoche and Duke if they're going to play Viciedo in LF, not add another veteran starter and not address the back end of the bullpen with more than band aids and Hail Mary's. It would make zero sense to do that...to aspire to a .500 team in an increasingly tough division.

Has there been any reason to believe there's at least a dialogue going with Cabrera? I know, I know...someone's going to say Rick Hahn always prefers to fly under the radar, in comparison to KW's style.

So the Braves have essentially added a more expensive and declining Markakis for Heyward (who was going to leave in all probability) and picked up a long-term rotation piece in Miller along with a lottery ticket similar to Montas in ability.

Ogando if his arm hasn't already fallen off.

I'm not even sure giving up what could be an elite closer in Montas for Samardzija is a good move, because you tack on $10 million in spending and you're left with only $10-15 million more for LF and the bullpen. (Of course, we'd have to spend that money anyway on a FA pitcher if we're really serious about competing.) It definitely makes the White Sox competitive in 2015. The problem is that they would still be at least two players away and mortgaging the future for a player they might at best have a 1 in 4 or 1 in 3 chance of re-signing. Seemingly, they have to target a pitcher they're going to control for a minimum of two and maximum of 4 years, as I don't think we'll see them go five years with a pitcher any time soon. (This is where a James Shields COULD make sense, but at $70-75 million for 3 years sense? Probably not.) The draft pick compensation isn't SO helpful either, because his impact might not even be felt until after that competitive window has already closed. I wouldn't trade Anderson, Rodon or Montas. On the fence with Hawkins (for the same reason they're holding out hope with Viciedo, POWER). I'd be okay with anyone else going, including Semien, M.Johnson or Danish.

This one's a bit of a surprise. The Royals really had a lot of interest in Hunter, especially after Tomas fell through.

Speaking of rehabs, what happened to Tommie Hanson? Did he ask for his release from the Charlotte roster?

If nothing else, a $1.5 million flyer on a Beachy or Floyd, just for the "good will" component of taking care of him during his rehab...would go a long ways towards keeping him in the fold down the line. Kind of like the situation with Peavy staying in Chicago and signing an extension. He was obviously already comfortable with the doctors, strength and conditioning people, etc.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 02:59 PM) Buster Olney ‏@Buster_ESPN 32s32 seconds ago Not surprisingly, Ervin Santana looking for as long of a deal as possible: Five years. In other news, the Orioles official admit to "regret" in the FA courtship and signing of Ubaldo Jimenez.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 06:34 PM) The difference between his split at Coors and everywhere else OPS wise for his career, not just cherry pickimg seasons,is equal to the 2014 difference between Gordon Beckham and Miguel Cabrera. Consequently, we should resign Gordon Beckham to the same deal Illitch gave Cabrera. Fun with statistics.

I think this pretty much puts to bed any notion he's going to be a Top 30 prospect in all of MILB. 40-55ish is probably more realistic.

Never really bought into the idea they were going to non-tender him. Whether he's still on the team Opening Day is another question altogether. The belief that Snodgress was going to make the team as the 2nd lefty when they're (apparently) trying to compete or at least selling that notion to the fanbase was equally dubious.

If the deal was contingent on an extension being worked out, Beane would be asking for Anderson and Montas or Hawkins. That would be less than the A's gave up to the Cubs, as Russell was ALREADY a Top 25-30 prospect at a more advanced level and a higher probability of sticking at SS. McKinney is roughly the equivalent of Hawkins, maybe not quite the upside but a higher floor as well.

Would like to see the show jump 10-15 years into the future when Carl, Judith and maybe Maggie and Glenn and their child/dren are running things. Of course, I've never read a single comic book in my life, so someone else can probably tell me exactly why this will never ever happen I'm sure.

Never watched The Walking Dead before two weeks ago and blitzed through the entire series in two weeks or so. I really hated the second half of last season after the 2nd battle for the prison, and, like others have pointed out....where does the series go from here? (A Maggie and Rosita Bikini car wash fundraiser?) They did a lot of individual character development in the second half of season 4, and it seems like half of that effort's been wiped out now. The heart of that series to me is really Hershel and The Governor, those two extremes...with Rick Grimes landing in the middle of the two polar opposites, essentially. Now that the Washington, D.C., angle has been closed off...just feel the show needs to "get big" again, like the time when they went to Atlanta/CDC and tried to investigate a possible solution to the plague. When they're traipsing along without a farm, prison, Terminus, Woodbury as the backdrop...the show becomes like another version of The Road. It's the group dynamics...the utilitarian "greatest good for the greatest number" scenes with Rick struggling for leadership that are the most compelling IMO, as well as fending off challenges from the Shanes, Gareths and Abrahams of the world.

Markakis in that 3 years/$40-42 million or 4 years/$48-50 million range is just too expensive for what he's going to provide. I'd honestly rather have Melky Cabrera for those elevated prices, and I don't think that would be a wise investment, either. Would rather put a lot less money into Rasmus, Aoki and/or trade for Saunders. Torii Hunter, he's just not an everyday outfielder anymore. Same with Morse. We SHOULD want our defense to get better, not worse.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 1, 2014 -> 08:40 PM) If there is any team for whom I think it makes sense to go "all-in" and risk some awful contracts, it's the Mariners. The past has shown that they can have a great, supportive fanbase, but their two next-door neighbors have taken away all the excitement and pub from them. They have a top-5 pitcher in the league and you don't want to waste him before something goes wrong. Plus, I know their owners can afford it. So I can understand the Cano & Cruz deals for them. Seahawks. Who else? UW? Vancouver? Portland? One thing that's a bit more puzzling is why they would trade Iwakuma? Maybe with Paxton and Walker coming quickly, they decided to save some money on their rotation and spread it out across other areas of the team. I guess it depends on who they're hoping to add if they deal him...plus, from a marketing side, they have the longest tradition (along with the Yankees and Dodgers) of utilizing Asian players to their benefit.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 1, 2014 -> 08:20 PM) How is that a crazy amount of money in today's market? It's crazy based on his decline in the 2nd half of 2014, the PEDs, the fact that he's essentially a DH but much older than Adam Dunn was when he signed a similar deal with the White Sox. Just like giving Victor Martinez four years was crazy, I'd say the same here for Cruz. Most fans would have preferred three, if not two. It would be interesting to stat track all of his Baltimore homers and see how many of those would have made it out at Safeco. We'll find out soon enough. I guess this also would make it less likely that the M's would also want Viciedo in exchange for Saunders, but who knows in the end? Both players undoubtedly need a change of scenery to give new energy to their careers.

I'd rather give Viciedo $4 million for 2015 than Nelson Cruz that crazy amount of money for four years. If nothing else, it makes it more and more likely that Saunders is gone, but I doubt 1) the M's plan to play Cruz full-time in the OF anymore OR 2) Saunders was still perceived to be a starter anyway, even without this deal. http://www.ussmariner.com/2014/12/01/a-luk...n-cruz-signing/ Good reading on the move by a Mariners blogger. Interesting very last column line...about not forcing Cruz into the OF and moving Saunders for peanuts. LOL. Of course they had to overpay, "this is southeast Alaska" we're talking about here! That's funny.

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ Dec 1, 2014 -> 08:00 PM) What's the fascination with Reddick? Same as Rasmus. Upside/potential, buying a bit low and hoping for a rebound instead of paying at the top of the market. Also, that 2 year window of control seems to fit the current plan...not to have too many 4-5 year deals, but to have the core of the team at least through 2016 and ideally 17/18 as well. Those two guys aren't going to be as risky since the exposure to a contract would be limited to two years while the team's waiting on Anderson and Hawkins to make an impact, as well as Micah Johnson.

We know the amount will be roughly $4-4.5 million. We know he'd probably be the RH side of a DH platoon with LaRoche and insurance for any injuries at the corners like both Dayan and DeAza were last season when A. Garcia went down. We know the plan certainly isn't to make him the starting LF in a contending season unless a lot of other plans and options fall through.