kitekrazy

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 14, 2013 -> 09:08 AM) Wow. Buehrle to the Cubs. Without any reason for it to actually happen. That's what Roger does. Once you get past that it's a nice informative article.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 8, 2013 -> 12:33 PM) What I don't understand is you want to get rid of Ramirez because you don't think he's worth his salary, then put a rookie at SS, and then spend money signing Grady Sizemore, who hasn't been good or healthy in 4 years, and I'm thinking the lone reason is he is left handed. How does that improve the team in 2013? Many of these trade ideas seem to be helping other teams instead of the Sox. Sanchez might be a good player one day, but making him the everyday SS now would probably have one pining for Ramirez in a month. Not to mention, Ramirez' trade value is probably at a low right now. Some of these ideas make Al Davis and Steve Ballmer look like a genius.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Mar 7, 2013 -> 09:36 PM) Congrats your post was so ignorant it compelled me to make my first post here in years. The value of a win is about $4 million. The Sox are going to be paying Ramirez 26.5 million over the next 3 years with an AAV of 8.9 million. Even with his career worst year at the plate last year due to the paucity of legit MLB caliber shortstops and his solid glove, bWAR had Ramirez for 2.2 wins and fWAR had him down for 1.8. That means he was basically worth his salary (note he only made 7 million in 2012). I will concede that the arc of Ramirez's career is not promising, but thanks to regression to the mean all the projection systems have Ramirez somewhere around a wOBA of .300, which would add about half a win over his 2012 numbers -- assuming his glove grades out about the same. It's probably fair to project Ramirez for about 7 WAR over the next 3 seasons -- at 4 million per win he'll be making...about exactly what he "should be". The idea that Ramirez's contract is some albatross hanging over the Sox is ludicrous. You'd rather rush a 20 year old to the bigs (and starting his arb clock no less) that projects a worse WAR just so you can jettison a 2 WAR player (aka a solid starter) that is being paid a fair salary. I've held back, but seriously? GTFO with such non-sense. You must be one of great patience to be silence among this cesspool of baseball stupidity. When did this Ramirez stuff get started? I'm going to assume it's because he didn't belt 72 HRs.

I think it hit 80 degrees in Glendale. I found out Chicago is getting hit with a foot of snow. http://galleries.apps.chicagotribune.com/c...isory-pictures/ Scroll down and you can see the Cell. Cell

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 03:02 PM) Saints are not franchising Jermon Bushrod, he will be a FA. I know the Bears don't have much cap space, but that would be a big upgrade at LT. Those guys are getting expensive in FA if they are slightly above average.

I feel much better about the Dunn contract even if he hits .150/25 HRs, at least they didn't pay the money Cleveland did for Swisher.

QUOTE (BlackJack @ Feb 21, 2013 -> 11:45 AM) I've the Sox finishing in 2nd place with 84 wins. Typical Reinsdorf definition of competitive. Meanwhile the other team that may lose 90 games will outdraw them.

Nice wishful thinking article. The Sox have trouble beating the Royals. The Tiger have decent pitching too and probably a better pitching coach. I think they are still the team to beat in the AL.

QUOTE (3E8 @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 06:55 PM) Yep, we had the 2nd-fewest days lost to the DL. And Brian Bruney accounted for 20% of the total days. I just find that so hard to believe. Most of them seem to come down the stretch.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Feb 21, 2013 -> 11:11 AM) I mean, if we're to believe the fans, they exist but think games are too expensive. Setting prices at the point where supply and demand intersect = high school economics. Plus they don't have that must see player like Thomas and a short window during the season where they only have to compete with the Cubs for attendance. How competitive are their prices when it comes to the other sports teams? If could see a family who are casual fans passing up baseball for the NBA and NFL is there is a small difference in ticket prices.

I disagree with Peavy. Detroit was a much better team that under achieved. They were better than the Sox except for defense.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 09:10 AM) What are you basing that on.........his AA stats? He could be but he has a less than .500 OPS in the major leagues and he's older than Viciedo. According to your previous posts, acquiring him would not be the best option. I would trade Rios for Olt for sure. I would trade Rios for a bag of balls if the other team took his contract. But this is another case of posters loving other teams' prospects while hating on White Sox prospects who put up similar if not better numbers. Mike Olt pre-2012...ranked 42nd best prospect Brian Anderson pre-2005...ranked 37th best prospect Olt's success is far from guaranteed. I like the wisdom in this post. I don't always trust this organization when it comes to prospects who aren't pitchers. Is Rios contract that expensive by today's non penny pitching Reinsdorf standards? Some of the adjustments made him one of the better players on the team. I'd take a chance on him being good this season.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 01:34 PM) Don't ask me who he is, never heard of him. Chris De Luca ‏@ChrisDeLuca #WhiteSox have acquired first baseman Lars Anderson off waivers from the Arizona Diamondbacks. I'm sure with that move everyone is lining up to buy season tickets.

QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 30, 2013 -> 02:40 PM) IF the Yankees are successful at voiding the remainder of A-Rod's contract, and IF his surgery is successful (and he passes a drug test(s)), would you take a flyer on him if you were the White Sox? If Jerry Angelo were the GM, this farce would be closer to a reality.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 12, 2013 -> 12:48 PM) why didn't you get suspended? color me pissed. in any case, i give a s*** because 1) i'm compassionate 2) healthcare costs 3) if they start caring, the government and the FDA may just start caring more, which will help me get better access to healthier food. Investigate healthcare costs. Better yet go to medical school and let Reality 101 when you start your first internship. Government is better at fuxing things than fixing things. Your last statement also points out that the whole "living healthy scheme" is a monopoly. Wow! That industry profits from evil capitalism too. BTW this whole lame argument by CNN, if true solves the Social Security problem.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 12, 2013 -> 12:55 PM) most smokers are poor and we tax the s*** out of them. now it's reckoning day for the fatsos! tax tax tax tax. Really?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 12, 2013 -> 12:12 PM) There needs to be some type of fat tax. If fat people use Obama care they should pay a lot more in taxes. Smokers are taxed, fat people need to be taxed. I also think insurance companies should start charging higher premiums for fat people. Let the dopes running this country add another tax when they can't trim their budget? Walk into a public school where the kids are given a government breakfast. The government only requires calories. None of it is really healthy. The sugar content alone would be like eating 4 Snicker bars.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 03:01 PM) I have felt they have been consistently overrated as superbowl contenders for quite some time. They are better than what we have seen(maybe a little bit), but we are told every year to watch out the Cowboys are back. I wish there were not on TV so much. At one time NFL owners didn't need to have a spot light. My theory is when this happens, teams regress. I assume the owner's godlike attitude makes it very unappealing to valuable front office people such as scouts. The Cowboys use the have the best. If scouts weren't so silent, the things they could say about owners and even GMs.

This actually makes me feel better about the Adam Dunn contract. How long will it take before teammates can't stand him.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 01:48 PM) If 117 days in first place isn't enough for fans to go to games, what is? How many years of winning are enough? Also how is what happened in 1982 relevant to what is going on in 2013? There is really no answer for that, is there? This is a mystery. Maybe Wrigley Field is more popular than baseball in Chicago. Maybe Hahn thinks silence is a good thing. Maybe contract talks are too open with the "we can only keep player X if fans show up". I would say the talks among fans about losing players outweighs how long they keep a player. That's the Bill Wirtz model. Doom and gloom.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 04:25 PM) There was a baseball simulation that was run with 30 completely average teams equal in every way, and it was run like 1000 times. In most of those simulations, one or two teams won 92 games and one or two lost 92 games. This is done because of injuries and players having outlier years. I think you understand my point here. My secondary point is that this isn't a simulation. I feel that the Tigers are more talented, but to get to the Tigers talent level this offseason, they would had to have committed $55-60 million per year over the next 5 years, as opposed to the $20 million they are instead committing with Keppinger and Peavy. On top of that, they would have had to gut any depth that they've built up in the minor league system. Neither are very smart, and the Sox have done enough to set themselves up to perform well this year while looking towards the future. With Viciedo improving to an .800+ OPS, Beckham getting to .750, Alexei getting above .700, Flowers putting up .750+, Dunn and Konerko staying healthy, Rios remaining the same, yada yada yada...best case scenario, this is a playoff team with about 95 wins. Worst case I see is , at the very most, 90 losses, but probably a lot closer to 83-85 loss team in a bad case scenario. Bottomline, they have the best and most economical team on the field right now that is possible. Which does nothing to boost attendance.

QUOTE (Lamar Johnson 23 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 03:55 PM) 83-85 wins does not get them into the playoffs. It puts them in ".500 purgatory". That is so White Sox.

QUOTE (Doc Edwards Shot @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 03:06 PM) I'm glad that the Sox didn't pick up Youk's $13 million option. I didn't really think they would, but... $13 million for one season should only be spent on All-Star caliber players rather than overrated, declining guys with .225 BAs who don't play good defense and get injured on a regular basis. I totally prefer getting Keppinger over keeping Youkilis around. You would think that but the economics of baseball is becoming more insane.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 06:03 PM) Well, then I have no idea what is considered a good clean hit and what is dirty. The Peppers hit looked clean, didn't lead with his helmet and it wasn't a late hit. The NFL should just go ahead and change the rules to that you can't hit QBs anymore...it will certainly help Cutler with the turnstile OL he has. It's hard to believe RG3 made it this far in football running "tall" on that play.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Dec 15, 2012 -> 05:44 PM) It's a shame the Sox couldn't have taken a run at Hamilton. I know it doesn't make a lot of sense financially given the tight purse strings of Reinsdorf, but what a splash he would've been. He's the kind of player that puts fans in the seats, not just at home but on the road too. I think that is part of the Sox attendance problem. They just don't have that one player that draws people to a stadium. Sale might be close to that, but the Big Hurt was probably the last player the Sox had that brought in the casual fan.