he gone.

QUOTE (InTheDriversSeat @ Jan 19, 2017 -> 11:07 PM) That's what I'm saying. That's the problem I foresee. People are cutting the cord to cable in record numbers. I've been on the edge for years, now with this new method I can cancel too. The less and less people who pay for cable the less and less advertisers will pay as there are less eyeballs. At a certain point you run into an issue. There is a cable bubble looming, it's just how will it shake out and how will it affect these massive sports tv contracts, and then player contracts. A correction is coming, it'll just be interesting to see how big effect it'll have. As far as I know, CSN Chicago is available in your area on both Direct TV or Dish Network, but not on your local cable company. Therefore, when you pay for the package (on one of the 2 dish services) that includes CSN Chicago, you should be able to get the streaming. Brian, "buffet style" or a-la-carte is not going to happen. Where do you think Jerry gets a large portion of money to pay for free agents? From every cable / satellite customer that receives CSN Chicago no matter if they watch any sports, or like the Sox, or not. Slightly related, I recently learned of a new provider that that offers CSN Chicago and CSN Chicago+ to customers in some areas. The name is Playstation Vue. I am not an expert, but apparently internet service and a streaming player (Roku, Apple TV, etc.) is required to connect to your television. Also, local free over-the-air broadcast channels are not included, so an antenna is needed to receive the stations. However, the cost for Playstation Vue seems to be cheaper than cable or satellite. I noticed that CSN Chicago / CSN+ is offered on Playstation Vue outside of Chicago in areas that are considered White Sox & Cubs territory: Iowa, downstate Illinois, Indiana. Enter a zip code at this link to determine cost and availability: https://www.playstation.com/en-us/network/vue/channels/ .

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 19, 2017 -> 11:28 AM) The one thing is when companies like HBO have been asked about this they really don't care that people share. They can more accurately report on numbers for people logged in watching, and they can still generate detailed reports for ad revenue then. I'm sure they'll end up about the same. Truth to this. They don't seem to be worried. However money has to come from somewhere. Right now there are a large base of people who do not care about sports at all who are helping fund ESPN, CSN, etc. etc. On the flip side, there are a lot of us who are funding Bravo and E! and channels we don't care about just to watch sports. The eventual outcome is what is hard to determine. I personally believe it will be a buffet style. You pay for what you want and it'll be survival of the fittest leaving some smaller channels SOL. Only problem with picking and choosing channels is that you don't have a pool of money from everybody to subsidize the costs. So right now ESPN may cost like $4.50 a month in your cable package, but if it comes down to only the people who want it paying for it? That cost might be $8 for ESPN a month. CSN might cost $6, etc etc. By the time you're done selecting your channels you may end up paying just as much as you were beforehand, possibly more. HBO already has done this in a way, but their subscription base is pretty solid and can survive and still put out content. Think about channels like A&E, Discovery, etc. maybe channels you watch some- but not enough to justify purchasing.. those will be the ones to worry about their future.. They need money to produce content. My tie to sports here is that if you do have it as a pick and choose option you might be surprised at the downturn in revenue that comes in for sports. I love sports, and so does everybody on a Sox board in January when the team sucks, but there are the casual fans who will opt not to pay in this situation. Again, this is long term. I don't think any of this will happen in the next 2-3 years, but I mean, something will happen. Look back 10 years ago... iPhones weren't even around. 10 years from now the landscape for watching TV will change considerably.

I love this, but the reason the MLB was dragging their feet on this is very obvious ... see all the responses above and what I'm thinking myself. As long as you know one person with cable who is willing to share their password, then you don't have to pay for cable to get the Sox and Hawks and bulls, or any college football or basketball games. It's a slippery slope the cable networks have created by forcing you to buy cable packages around sports and jacking up prices of said cable packages around sports only to allow you to stream these games in an "illegal" fashion pretty damn easily. You are going to see some real big market corrections in the future in the cable space. And it's gong to be messy. Along the same lines, a lot of these giant contracts? They are based off giant TV packages... which are based off the fact marketers are willing to pay for ad space during sports because the theory is that if you are watching a live event you are more likely to watch ads. If you're watching a TV show likely you are DVR'ing it and skipping commercials. If this cookie starts to crumble and people cancel their cable subscriptions and start sharing codes? Revenue base is no longer there to support these cable prices, the ads, the tv contracts, the players contracts, etc etc etc. It's a domino effect. Not saying that streaming the Sox or Cubs like this is going to change landscape - I'm saying its a bigger problem than many realize. But at the same point Ill enjoy the ensuing mess, cancel my cable and steal a password. Frees up a good $700-800 a year in my budget while still being able to watch the Sox, Hawks and Redbirds. Sorry If I rambled there, and I didn't re-read my entry, so it may not make complete sense/forgot points in my arugment.

GET OFF MY LAWN! YOU YOUNG WHIPPERSNAPPER AND 110MPH ARM!!! I miss the old days when you could watch the Sox for a nickel! We can all sit here in our ivory cubicles and judge away, but he's what 19 or 20?? And has how much money? And has ties to reality TV/Hollywood I think I read? I'm not saying those are things I look for in a pitcher on my favorite team, however I also didn't go through this age with a phone recording every single move I took. I'm sure I'd post some really dumb things and made terrible decisions... and I don't didn't have any money or connections.. If his bad decision are hanging out with a blonde in a bikini and trying to the throw a ball hard? I'll take that. Can we get a trade? Or .. anything? This thread stinks.

The more you look back at trades and signings Hahn has done the more you question why isn't this team better. Or maybe how much control he really he has to build the team to his liking. Would be interesting to see if he was let loose with no rules to spending or trades what he'd come up with. By no means has Frazier been great and the return for him on the trade market appears to be lower than we thought, but shoot, we traded a guy who was DFA'ed. we traded Thompson -- who although fine in the field and has flashed some potential is probably suited as a fringy 3/4 OF. And Frankie Montas. Who probably has the biggest upside to his career by far. Though being traded by 2 teams in two years does raise at least some eyebrows. To answer the question of the thread - why not? Bring him back. If he is okay being thrown into the pile heap with Lawrie, Sanchez, Cabrera, etc. then sure. Those guys are all nobodies anyways.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 29, 2016 -> 10:10 AM) With the way we've seen the market for 1b/DH types collapse this year, I'm at the point of agreeing there's no benefit to moving Abreu. No one will give anything of value for him, and if we're talking about a clubhouse influence I would put his locker specifically next to this "Moncada" guy in spring training and hope for the best. I don't think him being at DH 4 years from now sounds very good to me though, because he seems to be trending really rapidly downwards as of now. Eye test? Completely agree. But hard to argue the results. Lumpy at times. But we just saw a second half that if on a contending team would have been really covered by the media more. He does seem to be running in quick sand, but so did Big Papi (not comparing the two apple to apples). Who knows how quickly he declines, but I'd take him at DH and Frazier at 1B in 2018. Both can shift over to their old positions every now and again too. It would allow a bit of flexibility. Just my two cents. Again these moves are dictated by the market IMO. These guys are both solid clubhouse guys with great work ethic. I'd take 25 clubhouse guys like them. Also I don't think we'd get close to the return we should out of them.

And also to add to that ... I obviously also think we should keep Abreu. I know he's looked slower and that he's aged a ton. But I think him at DH for next 4-6 years sounds good to me. I don't think we'll know what were missing til he's traded. Again the right type of guy to have in the clubhouse. I do agree with trading Q, Robertson, Jones, Melky, and everybody else. But would like to keep Frazier and Abreu.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 29, 2016 -> 08:47 AM) When the Sox acquired Frazier, he had 2 years left on his contract; now he has 1 year left. His control is 50% less, and there is no reason the Sox should expect anymore than 50% of what they gave up for him. Frazier had a bad year, including leading MLB in infield pop ups. And that was behind a miserable second half to 2015, which most willfully ignored. He will be 31 this season. Could he turn it around? Of course - there's a chance. But teams won't pay any sort of premium right now to see that happen. His value will be better in June or July if he has a good year...it's worth the risk to wait. Quintana, on the other hand, just delivered his fourth quality season. He's consistent as heck and it is his consistency that puts him in the top tier category, if not the ace. A fifth good year added on to four, doesn't really raise his value; and he's not going to suddenly start throwing 96 to get teams to pay for his "stuff." The greater risk is that he has an off year, and that will kill his value as his value is one of consistency and contract, not stuff. A seller's market will not exist this time next year. Quintana needs to be moved. Not to shift any gears here, and I know this is Q thread, just don't want to start a new thread for Frazier. Depending on who we receive back for Q, Jones, Robertson, etc. etc. I wouldn't mind keeping Frazier. Now if we acquire a 3B in trades then yes, I think you deal him. My reasons are: 1 - He only has a year left on his contract and is not coming off his strongest year - I don't think you get much in return for him 2 - He seems to be a strong clubhouse presence and has been on some bad teams down in CIN. I think he can handle a few years being the leader to younger guys. He seems to have his head screwed on right and a good work ethic 3 - I honestly do think he'll bat better than last year. I'd expect .250 and 30-35HR's and a bit better plate presence - that being said I'm usually over optimistic on Sox players 4 - I think you can lock him up for a 3-4 year deal before FA for approx. $12-14mm a year. That's a total guess, but seems pretty affordable 5 - The Sox haven't had a serviceable 3B for a damn long time. I won't list them out, but the likes of Mark Teahen come to mind 6 - Even if he starts to declne defensively (we'd have him for ages 32-35/36) then I think you can flip him over to 1B and then Abreu to DH ... or if he really falls apart DH. I think there is still value for a guy who can pop 30HR a year at all 3 positions. 7 - Who is our present internal options? Again we may trade for someone - but I think there are worse things than spending 4yr, 50-56mm on Frazier. The other option is we flip him for a return like Micah Johnson, Thompson and what's his face pitcher... but really the return will be less than that. And that just doesn't excite me.

If Bregman was ever an option we'd have him instead of Moncada and Sale would be in Houston right now. He wasn't an option for Sale and won't be for Q. If you throw in Frazier?? Possibly, but I still think they would have found a way to have Sale on their team if he was a possibility.

I'd throw in something else w/ Robertson to close any deal for Conforto. I highly doubt the Mets would unload him. They want to unload Granderson or Bruce to open spots in the OF. Looking at their team - they need more help than just a closer... they could really use an Abreu or Frazier with Frazier being the better fit to replace D. Wright/Reyes option they currently have. Maybe throwing in a Lawrie can tip the scales? I'd think not, but he can at least fill in across the infield as necessary and their team needs so help there. How about: Robertson + either Frazier or Abreu We get: Conforto And then one of their top 3-5 prospects --- Gavin Cecchini looks damn good. That leans heavy to the Sox on return though if you're giving up Frazier. Probably more even with Abreu attached, but he is strictly a 1B only and Dominic Smith is probably about a year away and is the exact same -- 1B only.

It will be interesting as a Sox fan to keep watch from a distance on all these players that we may or may not acquire. For instance, I already will be measuring Bientiendi (spelled wrong, don't care) versus Moncada for the next 5 years. Likewise we will do the same with Robles and Bregman and Tucker and Meadows, Torres, etc. Hopefully all of our guys pan out and we can't say --- "what if" like Astros? can when they passed on Kris Bryant. But for now to keep on topic: Bregman (pipe dream) Meadows Torres Dahl Tucker (not high on him) But really I have no god damn clue. I'm not a scout and don't have enough time in my day to research more than a few stat lines and blurbs. My main reason not liking Tucker is his brother didn't pan out at all... so that should tell you my thinking doesn't add much. Meadows is near my top because I like his low strikeout rates and higher walk ratio. To be honest, people like Moncada with high strikeouts scare me. I've grown very tired of watching Dunn and Lawrie and Frazier and Jose Valentine and on and on and on of these guys who strike out.

QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Dec 21, 2016 -> 11:35 AM) Bregman, Meadows, Glasnow, Rodgers, Dahl, Torres, Frazier I have confidence that Hahn will negotiate his way to one of those headliners before this is over, or else we'll see Quintana on the hill for the Sox Opening Day 2017. Agreed. We're sitting in the catbird seat (had to work in the Hawk'ism) He's smart enough to know that Q is our last big trade piece that will in all reality determine the pace, strength, timeline, and success of this teardown. You need to carefully execute this piece and get at least 2 TOP prospects in the MLB, not just of a certain team, of the MLB. After this we have a couple bullpen pieces that can get you decent haul, but nothing as powerful as a top, controllable pitcher when MLB is starving for arms. You need one of those guys or equivalent listed above. And I really hope it leans towards the bats. I'd like to get 2-3 bats.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Dec 21, 2016 -> 11:25 AM) Astros fans did not want to part with anyone for Quintana Pirates fans do seem to be more realistic in that Glasnow and/or Meadows need to be on the table for a deal to happen. Meadows appears to be off the table, which would seriously hamper the ability to work a trade. Bell is a good prospect, but his bat at 1B/DH is much less valuable that a player at a more premium defensive position. I wouldn't put much stock into what Astros fans say. They barely know there is a team down there. Also Quintana is not a sexy name to most outsiders. Also doesn't help when the GM comes out and says things against Q. Everybody who doesn't pay attention just jumps onto that comment. If I was Q it'd be a rough start to my relationship with my GM if he said what he did.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 21, 2016 -> 11:19 AM) I'm in College Station (Aggieland) and thus about 1.5 hour drive from downtown Houston. If I'm still here next September I get the Sox for a 3 game series at whatever Minute Maid park is called for now. I've said since Sale was traded that I can't fathom how the Astros would make the moves they made and go into this season with this rotation. They made strong, short term moves to upgrade their lineup. They won't give up Bregman fine...they have an all star laden infield, they have guys like Gurriel who could be moved to 1b, they absolutely need reliable starting pitching and they have the non-Bregman talent available to get it. On paper they're as good as the Rangers and Texas outperformed in 1 run games last year which you can't expect them to repeat, but on paper I'm looking at the Indians vs. Red Sox ALCS and thinking that series looks epic. The Astros have to change that dynamic. To me it's half measures. I totally agree they are putting themselves in a position to win again, but would be foolish to think a rotation with McCullers as your #2 (I know they probably list them differently) and Musgrove maybe your #3 by season end is going to win you a WS. That team with McHugh and Morton? Yuck. I'd put the Astros as my second favorite team - partly due because I lived down there and partly because I know watching 162 games of the Sox is going to be brutal as it was last year and the next 1.5 years. The Stros have the ability to move a ML bat and acquire Quintana while keeping their top prospects in order. I know they love Bregman, and I do too, but I'd pull the trigger on that. (from the Astros perspective). From the Sox perspective I want Bregman, but there is something to be said about getting 3-5 prospects rather than just Bregman and 1 other decent + throw ins. I know this is all moot as Bregman isn't going anywhere. But as you said.. you have McCann, Gattis splitting time behind the plate. You have Gurriel who can play LF, RF, 1B, 3B. You have Marwin Gonzalez who can play 1B, 2B, SS, 3B, etc. You have your middle of the field locked and loaded in Altuve and Correa. Springer and Reddick and Beltran... I mean there are more than enough bats to go around WITHOUT Bregman. Either way, enjoy your time down there. I couldn't stand the heat, hence why I'm back. Astros park is alright, weird watching baseball inside for me though. And good luck in Aggie land. I adopted them too when down there, but that's a different type of folk. Super into their Aggies - cultish.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 21, 2016 -> 11:00 AM) I would not say that my Second team was the Bucs, I just happened to live there for 2 years. I'm starting to get to know the Astros this year. If I were in their GMs shoes, I would headline it with Meadows. I don't think they'll get the return for McCutchen they need, if he had a recovery year he's great for that franchise anyway, and Bell and their young pitchers are a perfect fit for their current needs. Meadows, Elias Diaz (the White Sox need catching depth and the Pirates have Cervelli signed), and I don't know anything about Mitch Keller but him or Brault would make a strong top 3 package that the Pirates could part with, without doing any damage to their big league roster now or in the next 3 years. Whereabouts in Houston are you living? Lived down there myself a stint. Have some suggestions if you need any. Myself, and this is just looking at the top 30 prospect list (something I've been doing a lot lately) I would rather do a deal with the Bucs or Astros than the Yanks or other teams being whispered about. If I'm the Sox? Meadows and Bell are looking real good. That Catching "prospect" is 26 which gives me some pause. He may be decent, but if you're that old generally you have figured it out by now. The Astros still have the pieces but are being stubborn. I like Reed and a few of their guys, but I for one would rather have hitting prospects rather than more pitching ... and as another poster said I think Meadows is really a Bregman in a way. Maybe a poor man's Bregman, but hard to tell this early in either career.

This goes along the lines with my thoughts on other FA. As it gets closer to ST I would take a look at who's available and then I'd pick the guys who fit best to have a chance at returning a low level prospect at the deadline. I'm not sure Howard fits that for me. Phillies probably desperately wanted to trade him and couldn't find anything. I think even with a $1-2mm salary attached he's not getting you anybody. I'd be more inclined to look at a Morneau again or a Luis Valbuena or Rasmus, Revere, etc. Valbuena can play around the diamond and we all know there are trends in baseball. Since the Royals started it a few years ago, everybody is on the "Bullpen" bandwagon. All of a sudden, and as you can tell with these contracts being passed out, relievers are gold. The next trend I see happening is the utility player being the golden ticket. So you've seen it with Zobrist and Baez. But I think managers are trending towards "flexibility". If you stick so and so player at 2b today then you can start this guy in LF who has better splits against LHP" I can see people like Saladino and Valbuena having some extra worth to them. And to an extent Lawrie around the IF. In terms of Morneau, I just think his upside is larger than a Howard. I agree though, these FA signed to 1 or 2 year deals aren't blocking anybody and if picked off correctly should be able to be flipped when necessary.

QUOTE (BRIRO2017 @ Dec 16, 2016 -> 12:22 PM) Well he's right about the thread. Completely retarded. As the person who started this thread id like to hear what was so "retarded" about my post. The Bautista thing is dumb, I forgot about the comp pick. I am against that. But I'd like to hear from the mr know it all sox fan how signing people like rasmus and revere to one or two year deals is dumb and a retarded idea? Look at our AAA and major league team right now. Signing these guys isn't blocking anybody. Rasmus got a $17 QO offer last year. How does taking a 1-2 year flier on him hurt? What if he does well. Don't you think we can flip him for something? Id love to discuss actual thoughts. But your language makes me think you're the type of fan that doesn't add much to convos. My idea makes sense. It's basically still selling off everybody, but not necessarily doing it immediately. There's not a huge market for Frazier and Melky right now so why not hold onto them for a half season and trade them later. Is it so crazy to field a decent team and try to acquire 1-2 year deals on guys you can flip in a best case scenario? Just cause we sold the first two guys doesn't mean we have to trade the next 5 by January

Also really didn't think about having a top 5 pick versus 10-15th pick. Also a good point and why I'm not GM. However I'm not sure how much correspondence there is between a top 5 pick becoming a star versus a mid round pick being a star... If you look the guys we traded for you have Kopech who was a sandwich pick and a buncha Latin players which were signed for pennies (OR A s*** ton in Moncada). You look at the Cards and such and they didn't need top 5 picks. I think you need a competent staff making good picks consistently from rounds 2-10 that can be serviceable MLB players and then hitting on a few stars via international and 1st round picks.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Dec 15, 2016 -> 09:48 AM) Don't really want them surrendering a first-round pick for Bautista. TOTALLY forgot about that. Axe Bautista 1000% Morneau or Hamilton wouldn't be bad though. Maybe a Luis Valbuena

So from time to time I think about another way to put together this team in 2017 and I get to thinking, maybe we can do a teardown while maintaining the ability to win. My thought process behind it? It may allow us to have more leverage on Quintana and Robertson, etc. while maybe not looking like hot garbage next year. Here's just an idea, and it was kind of ruined with the Wellington Castillo pick up by the O's -- but: Let's sign: Josh Hamilton to a 1 year deal for like $1-2mm - way I see it? He's getting Minor league interest. He's a roll of the dice like Rollins. You probably end up cutting him - but let's say he has a mini revival and hits .250 with 15 homers by the deadline? You can turn that into a low level prospect lottery ticket possibly. Jose Bautista to a 2 year deal for like $30mm. His market is very small right now and all signs point back to Toronto. There are rumors about a 3 year deal with a 1 year opt-out. Maybe going high on price for 2 years is worth the risk. We have the money and if he reverts back to his younger numbers you can have a masher in your lineup that you can flip. We have the luxury of taking a risk. A team fighting for the playoffs can't sign a Joey Bats and if he flops eat that. With only a two year contract, and if performing, he could get you a nice haul - probably similar to whatever Beltran got. If he fails? Who cares. We have almost no salary. Wellington Castillo: Obviously can't do that anymore. An OF type: Colby Rasmus/Ben Revere - to one year deals. Both are acceptable. Or another similar type. Again same thinking, they can help us be competitive and add something to the team and can be flipped down the stretch. Not like they'll get much back in a haul, but both have played well in the past. Justin Morenau - again same. He didn't do badly last year. Very meh. But can get him at $1-2mm probably. Worth it. Pitching - Rubby De La Rosa - Coop type of fix guy. He does have some good stuff and can get strikeouts. Over the years I've had him on my fantasy team and he'll mow down teams for 3-4 starts at a time and then get shelled the next 2. Very up and down. Maybe something Coop can see and fix. Those type of pitchers can be so valuable ala Rich Hill if they ever figure it out. Jake Peavy: This is more cause I like the guy. But also I wouldn't mind him in the clubhouse talking to the younger guys in Lopez and Kopech (Spring Training) and Giolito, Rodon, Fulmer, etc. Now that's a lot of guys and obviously we wont get them all, so I'll pick out a few and put together a lineup: CF- Revere LF - Melky 1B - Abreu DH - Joey Bats/Morneau/Hamilton (obviously if this is the latter two you move them down in the lineup) 3B - Frazier 2B - Moncada SS - Anderson RF - Rasmus C - Warm Body Out of all those guys -- every one can be on a 1-2 year deal except Abreu/Moncada/Anderson and those guys are who I want to stick around. Joey Bats is the most aggressive signing and riskiest but a middle lineup like Abreu/Bautista/Frazier mashes. Then pitching: Quintana Rodon Gonzalez Holland De La Rosa Again more pitchers mentioned than we have space for. Probably cut out Peavy. Move Shields to long relief and #6. Undoubtedly someone gets hurt. You still have Jones and Robertson. It's actually maybe a competitive team in the first half and you can still tear down at any given point this year. Your bench has Lawrie and Tilson and Saladino. You have a very capable OF with Revere and Rasmus chasing balls down. You have infield depth and versatility. A few lotto tickets in the pithcing rotation.... I mean, stuck in Sox mediocrity, but could be an 85 win team and doesn't stop you from tearing down at any point. I know I'll get roasted for this post, just devil's advocate. you are signing guys with previous upside to short term deals that you can flip and yet remain competitive keeping somewhat of an upperhand on the trade market.

I love Bregman, but if they weren't willing to budge on Sale for him, then Q ain't getting him either. Maybe on a one for one, but I'm not sure anybody wins that deal. I'd like to maybe wrestle Reed away from them - I'm just not sure we have anything left that matches up. They don't have a need for Frazier or Melky. Robertson is too expensive for them. Jones could make sense, but you can say that about every team. I hate to say it, but I'm not sure they matchup well with us when you take away Bregman from the deals.

QUOTE (doogiec @ Dec 5, 2016 -> 06:45 PM) I am looking for an additional partner for our full season tickets for 2017. We have up to 36 tickets available (can be pairs or fours). Seats are LD Platinum Boxes in 135 (behind Sox on deck circle) on aisle. Everything is at cost. Playoff rights prorated among partners. Message if interested, I'll forward more information. I'll shoot you a message too, but I am interested in learning more. I would probably want 6-12 games for two seats.

Bittersweet. I don't have the confidence in the FO to properly execute the overhaul; mostly because they couldn't properly execute anything with this window of opportunity.

The trading of a Fiers or another SP should be viewed as a positive if you want a deal done with the Astros like I do. They want to free up space so they can sign an EE. They do that? They have more than enough offense and can trade Bregman. side note: As an Astros fan I'd rather have Bregman than clog my lineup with EE, Beltran, Gattis, etc. Too station to station. I'd imagine if they sign EE and trade for Sale you'd have a lineup with: 1b - ee/gattis/marwin 2b - altuve 3b - gurriel/marwin gonzalez ss - correa lf -beltran/ aoki cf - springer rf - Reddick c- McCann/gattis dh - gattis/ee

QUOTE (wrj47 @ Nov 10, 2016 -> 02:27 PM) Looking for interested parties to share Chicago White Sox season ticket package for 2017 season. 2 seats located 10 rows behind 1st base dugout in Sec. 123 (aisle seats). Package includes discounted parking and stadium club passes. Will sell single and multiple games. email for specifics. Sent you an email. I'm interested. Always like being a part of these type of plans in case it ever does take a turn for the better. Willing to probably do between 5-15 games depending on how you structure it and how the sox offseason goes.