Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/13/2019 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    When 5 IP, 6h 4BB and 6R, 4ER is improvement, you've already eaten the crap sandwich.
  2. 2 points
    I said all offseason when people were freaking out like little school girls at the prospect of getting Harper and/or Machado that this team isn't any good. That we need to have a foundation before we worry about choosing what type of flooring to buy. That stance remains unchanged the number one problem with this franchise is not an inability to spend money it's an inability to judge and develop talent at the minor league level. If anything the one saving grace and what gives us the best chance is moving forward is we don't have a ton of big money contracts on the roster. Whomever comes in afterwards is free to execute their own vision on their timetable. I don't care how much money the owner makes in the nearterm we are all aware this is at best a mid market team and in order for the Whitesox to be successful we need to have numerous guys on their pre-FA contracts play well. Once that happens then lets worry if the Chisox/Jerry aren't spending but until then I don't want Hahn or KW to burden the next regime with a bunch of longterm deals so he can win a bunch of meaningless games in lost seasons
  3. 2 points
    What the fuck does the Cubs or Astros rebuilding have to do with Jerry Reinsdorf wanting to win or not? And to answer your dumb question, those teams wanted to win so badly they decided to take on short-term losses to set themselves up for sustainable success. Moving past your nonsensical post, all owners want to win, the difference between a good owner and bad owner is what they do to support winning in a handful of areas. 1) Are they willing to commit as much of their financial resources as they possibly can into the team. 2) Are they able to hire smart baseball people to run their organization. 3) Are they willing to create a culture of accountability and replace leaders that fail to build a winning product. 4) Are they willing to allow their front office to operate free of restrictions and shape the organization as they see fit. Reinsdorf fails in all those areas. He refuses to invest in his club preemptively to build fan interest when it could pay dividends long-term. He also refuses to go into the red even when there is strategic merit for short-term losses. Jerry wants to win as long as there are some profits to be made and he isn’t forced to go into cash reserves. For 2 & 3, he has had the same two guys lead this organization for the last 15 to 20 years and the results have been very poor to the say the least. Part of that is due to short-sighted decision making that saw us go for it year-after-year despite our owner not willing to commit the necessary financial resources to successfully execute such a plan. However, the lack of investment in analytics and player development is probably the bigger crime and has put us way behind most organizations. Unfortunately, Jerry’s culture of unwavering loyalty allows for stubborn & uncreative thinking and prevents an influx of new voices with fresh ideas. Finally, for item 4, Reinsdorf has a vast history of interfering with operations. For years we couldn’t go over slot in the draft because he was buds with Bud. We couldn’t offer pitchers too long of deals because of his risk tolerance. And there is no doubt in my mind the constant “go for it” mentality we previously operated under is the result of Jerry dictating the strategic vision of the franchise. I have no doubt Jerry would rather win than lose, but his actions (or lack thereof) have been a deterrent to the organization’s well-being and he is no doubt a bad owner for the reasons I highlighted above.
  4. 2 points
    A WHIP of 2? An ERA of 7.2? That is completely dreadful. He gutted it out yeah, but he was bad. He made it 5. Against a depleted Yankee team in terrible conditions. But it doesn't look like a turning point. If the Sox were a real team right now, this would not even be somewhat almost nearly acceptable. But seeing as they're not maybe you are right. There is no reason to not hope on him becoming a servicable starter.
  5. 2 points
    As in he will become a star with one franchise but win a World Series with another because of shitty ownership? Great! Cleveland rocks!
  6. 1 point
    Yes we have sidekicks who can and do contribute. Leury deserves credit.
  7. 1 point
    Moncada Jimenez Anderson Abreu Alonso are five quality hitters I enjoy watching. I am good with that.
  8. 1 point
    Cant believe some of you all turned that historic night into a cesspool of whining and complaining
  9. 1 point
    A million times yes. This is what I always try to say but suck at the whole English language thing.
  10. 1 point
    Madrigal only has 25 at bats at Winston Salem and has 5 hits. I don't consider that terrible or a reason for concern.
  11. 1 point
    Yeah, I'm not sure if he expected everyone to get off to hot starts. The season just started. I'd say Walker has looked good too.
  12. 1 point
    Robert, Collins, Cease, Sosa, Zavala, Lambert, and Flores are all off to a good start. And the most important two (Robert and Cease) have been phenomenal.
  13. 1 point
    So the Astros and the Cubs didn't want to win when they blew it up? More flathom fathom flavum soft takes.
  14. 1 point
    That was a cheap HR. If anyone other than Leury is in RF that is an out. The broadcast said the xBA on that HR was .100
  15. 1 point
    I'm not even going to take a lot out of this start for Gio. Throwing a slick baseball in the pouring rain is not fair. Not to him and not to the fielders either. They shouldn't be playing this game.
  16. 1 point
    probably more accurate than saying Giolito has good stuff.
  17. 1 point
  18. 1 point
    If that’s the best you can say about the man, that he “wants to win”, well, that’s almost damning with faint praise. Every owner “wants to win”. Name us one that doesn’t. The difference is Reinsdorf either doesn’t want to win as badly as his peers, won’t expend the resources necessary to do so (see past offseason), or an unfortunate combination of both. Surely you see a disconnect between your claim he “wants to win” and his miserable record over a 38 period of doing so. Why hasn’t his wanting to win translated into far more of it? Just bad luck?
  19. 1 point
    Well yes, he wants to win, but who doesn’t? Every owner in the game wants to win, so this characteristic does not differentiate Reinsdorf from his peers. What does differentiate is how he prioritizes winning among his two other top objectives: profitability and his so-called “loyalty” program. The goals around those two seemingly garner far greater attention and prioritization than putting a winning product on the field. His record supports that. Reinsdorf has made the Sox quite profitable, which is great for him and the investors. Successful there. Reinsdorf has been wildly loyal to people within the organization upon whom his favor rests, whether they’ve been good and successful at their jobs or not. He’s been successful in letting people he likes to stick around indefinitely. That’s good for Reinsdorf and his friends in the organization. It’s the objective of putting a winning ball club together, which would be GOOD FOR US, THE FANS, that he’s miserably failed to achieve. That’s the cause of the angst with the fan base, pure and simple. And all of this has pretty much defined Reinsdorf and his 38 years of ownership of the ball club.
  20. 1 point
  21. 1 point
    JR being worried about years 9 and 10 in a Machado contract indicates some sort of Reinsdorf ownership for a long time.
  22. 1 point
    This is what people fail to understand once an outcome occurs... they didnt win because of Aroldis Chapman. What they may have done is cost themselves a significant amount of value in the long run and hampered their chances of winning over an extended period of time. Just because you win does not mean all your moves were smart. That assumption is OK for fans to make, I guess, as fans succumb more to outcome bias. But signing Heyward wasnt smart just because they won the world series, so why is a trade smart just because they won. Why do people think that way? Because present day value is something we witness in the moment. Fv is something that takes time to come to fruition. That's why bad free agent signings are still bad even if you win - because fans presently see his shitty value - but bad trades are forgotten... because fans don't see the exact value of the trade until years after. To someone whose job is to value talent, both present and future, that trade was an absolute train wreck and pretty much everyone would agree. Look at the other relievers trades. The Cubs gave up so much more for even less time than Cleveland gave up for Miller - as an example.
  23. 1 point
    1) Yeah, you can reread the exchange and see who took it personal. 2) I don't want to call you wrong, you just happened to be wrong. You speak about everything matter-of-factly whether you have any substance behind your take or not. Also, I pointed out you were wrong so people don't think your inaccurate info is real. Your response to me doing that is moving goal posts and making it personal because at the end of the day you can't back up bullshit with facts so changing the subject was your only course. I have asked for the rules before. They don't exist. I also PM'ed you asking what the broken rules were. You didn't respond. I guess you're more concerned with the public shaming attempt here than you are in clarity towards the rules. 3) I don't even know what you're talking about. You need this to be personal and you're taking it that way because you can't debate your points on merit because they are factually inaccurate. The hypocrisy is actually impressive. Instead of admitting you were wrong in the first place, you have absolutely derailed the thread to change the subject from you being wrong to me eating cake and likening me to a fallen company you don't understand. That's great leadership. You need to get off your pedastool. For those who don't know, the owner of the site has a young family and a demanding career and as a result, can't manage the site as much as may he have in the past. That's a great thing and has happened to a lot of people that used to be frequent users/mods/admins. I post way less than what I did when I was in. In any case, there are a bunch of mundane, boring tasks that need to be completed like accepting new members, monitoring for spam accounts, changing users names, etc. Since 2k5 is online here all the time, he does most of this stuff. So the site's back-end functioning is a lot of stuff s2k5 does. As such, he's valuable to keeping the site running and reprimanding him or calling him on his shit isn't something people are willing to do. And no one would want him to leave the site because those tedious tasks would have to be picked up by someone else. So the externality created is s2k5 thinks he's better than everyone else, can condescend/attack people without reprimand and can use his power against those he disagrees with (regardless of "rules" and norms around here). And while the forum's reaction isn't infallible, look at how objective people responded to this personal shit storm you created. I might flip it the other way by addressing it but there's not a lot of support for your posts in this. People seem to be responding positively to what I had to you. And I am not the most popular poster by any stretch, but I think it speaks to the fact that most people prefer factually-based reasoning as opposed to the personal digs and idioms you put out.
  24. 1 point
    I still think Mozeliak is the best in the business. Having the balls to let Pujols walk won me over. Los cojones grandes. He's great at making decisions on who to pay. Goldschmidt and Holliday were great examples.
  25. 1 point
    What difference does August 1st make as opposed to "by July 1st"? Isn't Super 2 in June?
This leaderboard is set to Chicago/GMT-06:00
×