Thad Bosley

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 16, 2016 -> 03:20 PM) I think you can throw out the 73 and 90 win predictions as ones that would take a couple standard deviations of "luck" to happen. Even the 76 win team we just had contained some terrible years by guys who usually weren't terrible. Adding Frazier, Lawrie, and the new catching duo to this mix should really pick up three of the worst positions on the field. I think the low to mid 80's is a good baseline for win prediction. Right now I would say 84 or 85 sounds right to me. When you look at the current situation this way, where you are just bumping up against a possible postseason appearance but also maybe just coming up a bit short, it almost seems worth it to give up the draft pick and just go and get Fowler and replace Garcia with him. Could literally mean the difference between making the playoffs and not.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 11:23 PM) The Mets operate in mostly the same fashion. They play in New York City. The Cubs and Yankees exist. Angels and Dodgers, Red Sox...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 10:13 PM) They don't operate like a large market team because their fan base operates like a small market team. The current team that manages how this team operates, JR, KW & RH, are 2 for 13 as a team, with a homer (grand slam in '05), and a bunt single (in '08). That pencils out to a .154 avg, which I'm sure you would agree is not very good. You ought to be benched for that lack of performance, but we all know that's not going to happen, so we're stuck with them until further notice. So let's just hope as we enter Year #14 of their collective stewardship that the stars somehow align with the team this year and the team goes on a long run of sustained success, one worthy of a dedicated fan base, and then the fans will reward as appropriate.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 09:49 PM) LMAO. The guy who started a thread last year how he was going to change allegiances because the team didn't win enough. He decided not to because he would rather complain, so in essence he would rather complain about a team than have them win. And this is one who refers to someone else as being childish. OK. I've told you this before, and I'll tell you this again. You've got me confused with someone else, somebody else who you relentlessly attack here, with this "change allegiance" silliness. I never said such a thing, nothing even remotely close. Go back and find this thread - I'd love to see it myself - and if you can't, and you won't, then please stop with the misinformation.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 09:42 PM) That is good. No surprise you have no answers. If you are going to act like a child and derail conversations the way you like to do, you'll be treated like a child.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 09:34 PM) If you have all the answers, why don't you either let them know or share them with us. If you have a question, raise your hand and wait until you're called upon.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 09:29 PM) Send them your resume. Only approach the bench when summoned, please.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 09:07 PM) You actually make the exact point. The Sox aren't a large market team, and expecting them to spend like one when they don't have that sort of revenue base is completely irrational. They ARE a large market team - they play in the city of Chicago. They don't operate as a large market team because they haven't ever figured out how to win in a sustainable fashion in order to build up this revenue base of which you speak.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 12:37 PM) I went to five games in September of 2012 and I never waited in line in the bathroom during a pennant race. I was there when Sale and Quintana ran out of gas and the offense dissipated. I'm sure you were there every game given your rhetoric, but there was no crowd excitement, no 75% filled stadium or anything. This team hasn't won 90 games in a decade, has come in first only once during that time (and that, it took them 163 games to do), with only one playoff appearance, and a meek and brief one at that. And so when the fan base is slow to react to that rare team in recent years that is competitive for a change as was the case in 2012, it's all of a sudden a bad fan base of sorts. Give me a bleepin' break. And again the question, was the fan base "fickle" and "weak" these past three seasons when there was also "no crowd excitement" at the 'ol ballpark? Or is this fickle & weak argument just pointed towards the 2012 season?

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 11:16 AM) I am sorry, but coming from you, this is ridiculous. You complain about one topic and you're known on this site for what has become a shtick. If you don't think the Sox have a fickle fan base I don't know what to tell you. Certainly there's a lot of great fans of this team, but as a whole, the fanbase is weak. The real "schtick" is the oft-unfair maligning of the fan base at this site. White Sox fans are not weak, they are not fickle. They are consumers just like anyone else responding to the product they've been routinely presented, which has not been very good for a long time now. And let's be very clear here. There's a difference between "blind loyalty" and "brand loyalty", the former reserved for family and friends, and the latter for when the brand is actually good. So is it fickleness or weakness of the fan base that they haven't flocked in droves to the Cell the past three years, or the fact that the product or brand on the field has been flat out horrible. Which is it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 10:48 AM) Some fans just live to complain, even if it has no basis in reality. LOL! Oh, for goodness sakes, SS2K5. You complain as much as anyone else around here. There are topics you cling to and complain about for whatever reason, such as your thoughts about the imaginary "fickle fan base". You've complained a storm up about that over the course of time!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 10:24 AM) The White Sox got 2 of those 3 contracts by spending for market level contracts in the free agent market, so obviously the way to fix that is to spend on more big free agent contracts at market level. No, the way to fix it is to spend money on better players.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 07:59 AM) Neither WS team had a $120 million payroll last season. In fact, both started last season below the White Sox. The Sox have had some much better than average team payrolls the last 5 or 6 years. And while I agree, the model to go into a season short hoping to add, is one this franchise has played out, cheap is not been what this team has been, especially if you consider thing like attendance. http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm What wins games is talent, not how much you are paying him. If Sale were paid market rate, and Quintana for that matter, payroll wouldn't even be discussed. Oh yes it would be. If the team was managing to an unimpressive payroll in this day and age of $123M, AND they were actually paying their core a market rate, just imagine the junk they'd be surrounding those guys with. Third tier players all around!

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 07:51 AM) It's a pretty average amount and one that we surpassed as far back as the 2008 & 2011 seasons. An average amount with 35% of it all wrapped up in Danks, Cabrera, and LaRoche. Yikes. To channel my inner-Hawk: don't tell me how much you spend. Tell me who you spend it on!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 13, 2016 -> 04:14 PM) How much do they have to spend? Probably more than what they are spending now, given how presently constituted the current payroll of $123M is still rendering the team at below average in four spots in the lineup (Garcia, LaRoche, Cabrera, & Saladino). But it's obviously a matter of spending the money wisely, with less spending on the likes of the LaRoche's, Cabrera's, and Keppinger's of the world, if that can be avoided.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 12, 2016 -> 10:18 PM) The allocations approved could very well have been either dependent on moving out other money, or they could have been a one time approval for just that player. I'm just worried if the Sox will have enough to make the rent payment and pay the utilities bill next month over there at 35th and Shields, given how tight you claim the budget to be all the time. And after that $3M hit they took on Latos? Jerry's probably in touch with every bankruptcy attorney in the city as we speak!!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 11, 2016 -> 01:15 PM) That doesnt' sound like the description I've heard of it. There was a moment when the season ticket holders got to talk to Hahn after the Rodon signing and asked him how it went and he had a sarcastic "working with my friend scott boras" line where the group could tell Hahn was being tongue in cheek because he hated the negotiation. It's a relationship that "works when it has to". I think the relationship with Boras depends on the class of player we're talking about. Ever since the experience the team had with trying to woo Alex Rodriguez back in whatever year it was before he eventually to the Rangers, the Sox just don't go after any big ticket item whom Boras is representing. On the other side of the scale, the team got Andruw Jones signed a few years ago with no problem. Somewhere in the middle, you never know. The team did do a dos y dos with Boras several years ago in an attempt to get Johnny Damon, but in the end it didn't work out. Whatever attempt there is right now to bring Jackson on board feels similar to that experience, at least to me. We'll see. I do think there is a line the team won't cross when it comes to negotiating with Boras, and in most cases, I don't blame them.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 12:58 PM) Which is precisely why I think it is a bluff from the Cubs to get more money from Comcast or Fox. What type of programming will the Cubs have in the winter on their network, reruns of old games? You can only show so many greatest games before they lose their appeal. Unless they go out and purchase the rights to the Blackhawks to supplement their programming they just wont have enough pull to get the type of advertising money they would need to be successful. The Yankees manage to do it in New York with their "YES" network, but the difference is, of course, that they can reach back in their rich, successful history and actually have an inventory of games worth watching again. The same cannot be said of the North Siders. They'd have to run that 23-22 game against the Phillies from back in the 70s at least 50 times a week!

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 8, 2016 -> 04:01 PM) When you're hoping for 7 pretty important players to rebound...you aren't a very good team. I think the concern is that the team that came dead last in offense last year is still below average offensively in nearly half the spots in the lineup (Garcia, LaRoche, Saladino, and Cabrera), at least as the roster is presently constituted. That and the corner outfield defense are particularly troublesome going into this season at the moment.

QUOTE (Doc Edwards Shot @ Feb 8, 2016 -> 10:53 AM) There has been a lot of conversation over the years about the time in the 1980s when Jerry was threatening to move the Sox to Tampa if he didn't get the city and state of IL to pay the bulk of the cost of the construction of "new" Comiskey Park (now U.S. Cellular Field). If this were to ever happen again and the Sox actually moved like the St. Louis Rams are currently doing, what would you do? Would you continue to follow the Sox remotely via a new TV premium package? Would you switch to some other team? Would you do the unthinkable and start following the Cubs since they would be the lone remaining team in the city? I don't know what I would do other than take a little time off from baseball to think about it - kind of like a grieving widower who would need some time before starting to date again. Welcome to the reality that was being a White Sox fan circa 1986-1988, when pondering answers to these questions was all too real. Jerry Reinsdorf obviously had no trouble dragging the fan base through that torment while casting a black cloud over the franchise during that time period. But it was a means to an end for he and the investors, because it made them ultimately very wealthy in the end. It didn't, however, translate into turning the franchise into a sustainably winning one for the fans, which, therein lies the problem. Time for a new owner.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 7, 2016 -> 11:01 PM) From the Tribune at Soxfest. All the quotes you pin on Hahn seem to be figment of your imagination. Hahn said he is in constant contact with Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf about the flexibility remaining in the club's budget and acknowledged he needs to be creative in structuring potential contracts to fit within the constraints. LMAO! Oh Dick, sometimes I think YOU'RE a figment of my imagination, because I can't believe how many times you jump into a conversation and completely take it off topic just for the sake of taking the opportunity to throw one of your uninteresting insults into the mix. But that's ok, you're having fun, I guess, but now let's see if we can't reel you back into what we were actually talking about before you entered the fray. If you'll notice, Dick, the topic of this thread has to do with the potential acquisition of one Dexter Fowler by the White Sox. Two regular posters here seem to think that perhaps an obstacle to acquiring Mr. Fowler's services are current budget constraints that may be in place. I happen to think that's not the case, based on "actual words" said by the General Manager at Soxfest. Actual words, Dick, not one's imagined. Quoth Mr. Hahn: “Let me make something really clear: There is absolutely no hardline, dogma, limit on contract terms with free agents. The reason we didn’t sign any of the hitters that thus far have signed elsewhere at the end of the day is not about contract term limitations. We had numerous conversations, with various parameters, various structures, right up until the day or the day before these players wound up choosing their ultimate destinations.” Now, what I took from that statement is that Mr. Hahn was insisting we were making competitive offers to those available premium free agents at that point in time. And my point is, any competitive offer we would have made for any of the big FA outfielders would be much larger than anything we would remotely offer Fowler. So if the Sox were able to make said offers to the Cespedes, Gordon, and perhaps Upton, then obviously the team isn't operating under these alleged budget constraints, as "rumored", or else they wouldn't have made those offers. Thus, we may be negotiating with Fowler for a deal that the team seems to believe is more reflective of the guy's actual market value, but not because the cupboard is bare and we're down to our last pennies.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Feb 7, 2016 -> 04:48 PM) Agreed. The budget was the main point I was addressing in the "2016 payroll " thread. It was rumored early in the off season that Hahn had 2015's budget to work with and the main reason why I felt the Sox wouldn't sign one of the big four. Plus, Hahn had said a few times that the team would need to get "creative " to make it work and that's probably why they were shopping LaRoche. The FO never said they were raising the payroll so I never assumed they would sign a big FA. Just didn't want to get my hopes up too high and suffer a huge let down. With Houston have so many outfielders, I'm hoping the Sox kick the tires on Andrew Aplin. LHB, OF, high OBP potential and solid defense. I dont know what the cost would be but Houston doesnt need him so maybe he could be had for a reasonabke price in a trade. Rather try that route than sign one of Victorino, DeJesus, Joyce, Venable etc. Was Rick Hahn lying at Soxfest when he said there were no financial or contractual restraints when they were negotiating with the big FAs, right up until the day those players signed with the teams that they did? Because whatever "budget constraints" you and SS2K5 imagine are in place today would have been place a few weeks ago when those players all upped up the way they did. To listen to you and SS2K5 go on and on about these alleged budget constraints that, unless you are an employee of the White Sox Finance dept., you would have zero way of knowing, is ridiculous. Unless you're suggesting Hahn is a bold-faced liar, you can probably put all of this budget nonsense to rest, once and for all.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2016 -> 02:52 PM) Hmm, I wonder what that constraint could be... It doesn't exist.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2016 -> 02:51 PM) So in talking about him, you weren't talking about him. That makes perfect sense that you weren't talking about him. Lol - ok, SS2K5, whatever. You are obviously in the mood to share some throw-away comments today, so have at it. Enjoy yourself!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2016 -> 11:59 AM) It is obvious to me that the team is up against the wall in terms of budget, which is what is holding them up. Well, this cannot even be remotely true. If there is some sort of budget constraint preventing us from being able to meet whatever Fowler's demands are at the moment, how in the world could we have even been remotely competitive for Cespedes, Gordon, and Upton, which Hahn assured us all last week the team was up until the times those players signed with the teams that they did. A bit of a disconnect there to say the least. Unless someone actually has access to the financial records of the Chicago White Sox, speculating on their budget and/or available resources seems to be a fool's errand.