Jump to content

Offseason Part 3 - Because Part 2 Was a Dud


CentralChamps21

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, maxjusttyped said:

Frustrating to hear this when a right field upgrade could be had with just money and from a trade perspective they're stuck having to deal from the wort farm system in baseball.

Exactly. So stupid to trade what little assets you have when all you need to do is spend money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tnetennba said:

Sorry, but a long standing misnomered nickname for an entire indigenous people group with no relation to the Indian subcontinent based solely on similar color of skin is in fact racist.  Being in common usage doesn't make it right.

I stand corrected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

 

They also supposedly offered the Red Sox $60K + Shoeless Joe for Babe Ruth before the Red Sox sold him to the Yankees for straight cash.

Based on all of Ruth's vices, I think it's best for baseball history that he didn't end up anywhere near the Black Sox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Quin said:

They also supposedly offered the Red Sox $60K + Shoeless Joe for Babe Ruth before the Red Sox sold him to the Yankees for straight cash.

Based on all of Ruth's vices, I think it's best for baseball history that he didn't end up anywhere near the Black Sox.

Black Sox were the only team officially caught. I’m sure if the truth got out we’d all have very different opinions of the early days of baseball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, bmags said:

I think it would have been good if sox got babe ruth imo

For the White Sox, hell yeah.

I'm saying, baseball history kinda sucks if you remove prime Babe Ruth cause Kenesaw Mountain Landis bans him from the sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Quin said:

For the White Sox, hell yeah.

I'm saying, baseball history kinda sucks if you remove prime Babe Ruth cause Kenesaw Mountain Landis bans him from the sport.

Can't just draw a straight line in history like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, CWSpalehoseCWS said:

Black Sox were the only team officially caught. I’m sure if the truth got out we’d all have very different opinions of the early days of baseball.

Gambling had been a big part of MLB from the beginning. MLB looked the other way until 1919 when it could no longer look the other way. What the Black Sox did was obviously wrong, but I'm convinced there was all kinds of cheating that many got away with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, NWINFan said:

Gambling had been a big part of MLB from the beginning. MLB looked the other way until 1919 when it could no longer look the other way. What the Black Sox did was obviously wrong, but I'm convinced there was all kinds of cheating that many got away with.

I think this would be a good time to bring up how fascinating that recent biography of Ty Cobb was which among other things re-enforced how difficult it is to look at 19th and early 20th century baseball with the same lens. He makes a strong, actually researched case that the contemporary knowledge around cobb was essentially made up but was entertaining and became common knowledge (not unlike 8 men out). 

But cobb was actually someone that stood out back then for being prickly about trying to professionalize the game. Because it does all come across much more like a rec softball league, and I do think even if unfair Landis coming out harshly set the league forward that this was a job and important and not something to screw around with anymore.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ThirdGen said:

Sox fans would have complained about a pitcher playing out of position in the outfield after seeing this picture.  Would have sent telegrams to the sponsors demanding Comiskey's removal.

096-750x422.jpg

lol, pretty good

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2022 at 12:31 AM, SoCalChiSox said:

Righty bat + player option= Its not Pollock

 

 

On 3/22/2022 at 12:57 AM, Bob Sacamano said:

Not for just Kimbrel anyway.

 

On 3/22/2022 at 12:36 AM, SoCalChiSox said:

Yeah I'd rather have Joc as a bandaid than get roped into an aging RHH who will further limit our financial flexibility in 23 with his player option. 

I'd rather give Kimbrel away for free than get that in return. 

Hell no.

Just to make sure we are all honest about this trade... ?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, ChiliIrishHammock24 said:

 

 

Just to make sure we are all honest about this trade... ?

I'll be honest, I thought he was always moveable but not for someone this good. And without eating any money.

I'll eat that crow.

Edited by Bob Sacamano
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...