greg775 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Sox need a shortstop who can hit over .200. I really feel in a full season, Saladino won't hit for s***. I wonder how season ticket sales are going. Right now, I can't see this team overachieving. A ceiling of .500 seems about right. Please make a couple more moves, White Sox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox59 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 The speculation sure is dead around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 I'm not sure any of these are big enough names that we are going to get a bunch of "non-report" reports from the national writers. Wouldn't be surprised if all of the remaining free agents are just "SO AND SO signs X player to deal" out of the blue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox59 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 09:31 AM) I'm not sure any of these are big enough names that we are going to get a bunch of "non-report" reports from the national writers. Wouldn't be surprised if all of the remaining free agents are just "SO AND SO signs X player to deal" out of the blue. I guess, but the dominoes have to start falling soon, you would think. I guess I could see Desmond and Gallardo going into ST, but there are still plenty of useful ball players out there without QO attached, and someone is going to sign Fowler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whisox05 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 #Rays are still bargain shopping. But barring a change of heart, Ian Desmond is a long shot. They don't want to give up draft pick. https://twitter.com/jcrasnick/status/697093915141414913 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenSox Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 QUOTE (SCCWS @ Feb 8, 2016 -> 09:21 PM) Cabrera pretty much produced as expected. Expected by whom? I hope the Sox brass expected a bit more than a .704 OPS with bad defense for their $42 million + loss of draft choice investment. The offense should be okay They didn't want to spend on more elite hitters, so go on the cheap and fix the defense. Sign Jackson or the like. To contend anyway, they need to fix the outfield defense and get more out of pitchers 3-5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 QUOTE (GreenSox @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 10:51 AM) Expected by whom? I hope the Sox brass expected a bit more than a .704 OPS with bad defense for their $42 million + loss of draft choice investment. The offense should be okay They didn't want to spend on more elite hitters, so go on the cheap and fix the defense. Sign Jackson or the like. To contend anyway, they need to fix the outfield defense and get more out of pitchers 3-5. You think they need to get more out of the 3rd pitcher? Im really not concerned about Rodon/Quintanas production Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 . Dexter Fowler pursued by both Chicago Cubs and Chicago White Sox https://dawindycity.com/2016/02/09/chicago-...-dexter-fowler/ Nothing new, same old speculation. Just something to read is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) . NEWSRays Reportedly Unlikely to Sign Ian Desmond http://www.todaysknuckleball.com/knuckleba...gn-ian-desmond/ . Who wants Ian Desmond? Probably not the “long shot” Rays http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2016/02/09/who-wa...long-shot-rays/ Sounding like the Rays are out on Desmond. Really didn't see a fit there anyway. Edited February 9, 2016 by BlackSox13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beast Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) I did find this, which I know is just speculation. It would be great if they got Jackson instead of Fowler and keep the pick. It seems like all they are looking for is a low risk, short term deal anyway, so he makes more sense than Fowler in terms of payroll flexibility. Plus they wouldn't lose a draft pick. Edited February 10, 2016 by MuckFinnesota Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glangon Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 QUOTE (MuckFinnesota @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 01:42 AM) I did find this, which I know is just speculation. It would be great if they got Jackson instead of Fowler and keep the pick. It seems like all they are looking for is a low risk, short term deal anyway, so he makes more sense than Fowler in terms of payroll flexibility. Plus they wouldn't lose a draft pick. I think the signing of Jackson would fit with the overall Free Agent policy this season. Latos, signed on a 1 year cheap deal. Avila - 1 year cheap deal Navarro - 1 year cheap deal Low risk potential high reward type players. I'd also be shocked if we signed Desmond, I could see us picking up someone like Clint Barmes or Jimmy Rollins if they don't decide to stick with a combination of Saladino and Sanchez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 http://www.royalsreview.com/2016/2/9/10911...s-to-the-throne White Sox picked here 10th out of 14 teams, and 4th in AL Central. Angels 14th is the biggest surprise. Says the health of Michael Brantley might very well decide the division. Questions the defense of Lawrie at second, Saladino at SS, Cabrera and Garcia on the corners and the back end of the rotation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 royals review seems like a solid non biased source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) They have the White Sox in fourth, which is the consensus right now. Four teams are behind the White Sox, which is a pretty realistic assessment. Where would you place them as of today? Why would they have an agenda to hype the Tigers or Indians? What in the synopsis paragraph that was written about each team is incorrect? The only obvious error was not mentioning Yu Darvish's comeback with the Rangers. They actually have Texas regressing to 9th, one spot in front of the Sox and also admit the Rays could easily fall back in the pack as well. Does Jim Margalus at SSS have the Sox higher? Going by his tone this entire offseason, it's highly doubtful. Edited February 10, 2016 by caulfield12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 07:07 AM) They have the White Sox in fourth, which is the consensus right now. Four teams are behind the White Sox, which is a pretty realistic assessment. Where would you place them as of today? Why would they have an agenda to hype the Tigers or Indians? What in the synopsis paragraph that was written about each team is incorrect? The only obvious error was not mentioning Yu Darvish's comeback with the Rangers. They actually have Texas regressing to 9th, one spot in front of the Sox and also admit the Rays could easily fall back in the pack as well. Does Jim Margalus at SSS have the Sox higher? Going by his tone this entire offseason, it's highly doubtful. Where i place them and what Margulas thinks doesnt really matter. What do the Royals fans think, thats what matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 07:22 AM) Where i place them and what Margulas thinks doesnt really matter. What do the Royals fans think, thats what matters. But the article isn't about that. There is a poll/survey at the end and the "fans" chose the Astros, Blue Jays and Tigers. The individual writer ranked them all and wrote individual summaries. Where is he wrong? You're telling me that the Future Sox writers or mods here would write the same article and put the Royals 10th just to get revenge and couldn't put aside their individual biases to write a fair and balanced appraisal? I'm sure at least ten here could, if not twelve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 07:34 AM) But the article isn't about that. There is a poll/survey at the end and the "fans" chose the Astros, Blue Jays and Tigers. The individual writer ranked them all and wrote individual summaries. Where is he wrong? You're telling me that the Future Sox writers or mods here would write the same article and put the Royals 10th just to get revenge and couldn't put aside their individual biases to write a fair and balanced appraisal? I'm sure at least ten here could, if not twelve. Im saying that all offseason you have done nothing but talk about the Royals, posted articles of theirs, forced their narrative into completely unrelated discussions, every chance you get. It is tiring telling you to stay on topic all the time. How about this, why dont you post articles from Margalus? SSS? Write Sox? I dont want to read an article that in the first paragraph refers to every other team as their underlings, mostly because I have had to hear that from you every day since the world series ended. /fin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lasttriptotulsa Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 07:34 AM) But the article isn't about that. There is a poll/survey at the end and the "fans" chose the Astros, Blue Jays and Tigers. The individual writer ranked them all and wrote individual summaries. Where is he wrong? You're telling me that the Future Sox writers or mods here would write the same article and put the Royals 10th just to get revenge and couldn't put aside their individual biases to write a fair and balanced appraisal? I'm sure at least ten here could, if not twelve. When you write an article about who the Royals biggest challengers are and you refer to the Royals as "us" your opinion has lost all credibility. And why would anybody here give a f*** who a Royals homer, wanna-be writer thinks the Royals biggest challengers are? And why is it posted in a thread about Ian Desmond and Austin Jackson. And as far as the poll at the end, it is on a Royals fan website. The readers are Royals fans. Would Royals fan give any credibility to a poll on Soxtalk. I highly doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shysocks Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 07:59 AM) When you write an article about who the Royals biggest challengers are and you refer to the Royals as "us" your opinion has lost all credibility. And why would anybody here give a f*** who a Royals homer, wanna-be writer thinks the Royals biggest challengers are? And why is it posted in a thread about Ian Desmond and Austin Jackson. And as far as the poll at the end, it is on a Royals fan website. The readers are Royals fans. Would Royals fan give any credibility to a poll on Soxtalk. I highly doubt it. Seconded. All of it. Sometimes - read, sometimes - caulfield's Royals tangents are partially sort of defensible and in the flow of conversation. This was just completely out of nowhere. Abjectly f***ing irritating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Dye Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Jon Heyman @JonHeyman 2m2 minutes ago Chisox are among teams considering Desmond. He'd be good fit there, better than another OF. Will discuss on @MLBNetwork at 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGajewski18 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Feb 11, 2016 -> 02:12 PM) Jon Heyman @JonHeyman 2m2 minutes ago Chisox are among teams considering Desmond. He'd be good fit there, better than another OF. Will discuss on @MLBNetwork at 6 Sign him and trade a reliever for Desmond Jennings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Falling out of love with this. Maybe 2 year deal with latter being a team option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmarComing25 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Feb 11, 2016 -> 02:12 PM) Jon Heyman @JonHeyman 2m2 minutes ago Chisox are among teams considering Desmond. He'd be good fit there, better than another OF. Will discuss on @MLBNetwork at 6 Disagree with that, but if we can sign Desmond and still get another OF I'd be OK with it. Edited February 11, 2016 by OmarComing25 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Abreu Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Signing him could lead to a trade of one of Saladino/Sanchez in a bigger package for an OF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 If they are committed to giving up the draft pick, I'd rather have Desmond than Fowler. Desmond is more likely to be a 3 WAR SS than Fowler is to be a 2-3 WAR OF in my opinion. Sox could still add a different OF via trade as well. They would have a pretty powerful infield with Frazier/Desmond/Lawrie/Abreu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.webp.29cc6c9fee0f01ceeb4f722593e5e3ba.webp)
Recommended Posts