WestEddy

Thanks for the laugh. Maybe one day, somebody will explain the term "self-awareness" to you.

Chris Getz was not in charge of scouting, drafting, or signing players. Development. They developed a weird strategy of punting the 3-10 picks to pool up money to go after high school kids in the later rounds. So, yeah, I guess that's 8 mediocre seniors he didn't develop properly every year. Yeah, I scratch my head over all of that. I mean, they were all baseball players. And some of the late round guys should have popped. The 2018 draft - they had 10 guys from up and down the draft eventually make the majors. As opposed to, like, 1. I'm not waving anything away. It's the people who are denying that Getz had anything to do with guys who developed during his tenure. That's just silly. Zack Collins. There's a failure. They drafted a kid with a hitch in his swing, and they couldn't fix it. Jimmy Lambert, Zach Remillard and Matt Foster came out of the later rounds of that draft. No, they're not All-Stars, but they were developed, and did have some use when they played. You're reading them as pure propaganda because I won't engage in the wild denial of reality the naysayers engage in, here.

It's like everybody has this dialog going on in their head, where the words on the screen are screaming at them that they must never question the White Sox or Chris Getz, and blaming me for those voices. LOL. If Chris Getz was such a failure with player development, you could point to clear development failures. You wouldn't have to disallow all of the actual successes from the conversation and come up with strange reasons why the director of player development had nothing to do with the development of players who were in the system during his leadership. Except all the guys who didn't become major leaguers. He developed them. Or didn't. I'll be around if anybody wants to discuss this rationally and unemotionally.

Who cares? People are claiming the director of player development had nothing to do with the success enjoyed by the players who came through the minors when he was director. But decades of failure are all his fault. All I'm defending is fact, itself. I'm not trying to make anybody like Getz, say he's good at his job or anything, really. It's beyond crazy that a person could state a simple fact, like, "well, some good players did come through the system under Getz", and everybody's heads explode, because that's not negative enough for their tender feelings.

I'm not even defending the organization or Getz. That's the funniest part. Nobody's asking for "the benefit of the doubt". All I'm arguing are simple facts. This is such an echo chamber of negativity that I could say today is Thursday, and everyone will start accusing me of being Reinsdorf's pet. Y'all dig in and argue the simplest facts. Expecting a player to become an impact player does not mean he wasn't "developed". A GM promoting a starting pitcher and sticking him in the bullpen isn't a failure on the player development guy. I'm not sure what you're entertained by. I guess reading people stating simple facts, and you feeling compelled to argue against logic can be funny, but only if you can laugh at yourself.

I'm not sure how any of this disproves that the list of names I provided, who all came through the minors on Getz's watch, can have their development credited to the guy in charge.

The person asked which players Getz, as director of player development, could "get credit" for. I'm not sure what your argument would be. Did Burger's wife manage a minor league team and throw him batting practice? It's funny when people play the, "I will not agree to any facts." game. "The White Sox don't even play baseball on Earth! There!"

Cease, Burger, Robert, Davis Martin, Crochet, Madrigal, Sheets, Jimmy Lambert, Zach Remillard, Rey Lopez, Giolito, Jimenez, Yoan, Kopech, Cristian Mena, Lenyn Sosa.

I agree with you. But in discussing it, I get put off by, "Getz hasn't developed anybody. Except the guys he developed, but they don't count, because reasons."

DeJong and Lopez are stability. Given the chance, either can put up 1.5-2 bWAR behind the pitching staff you're trying to develop. I dig Lenyn Sosa, and wanted him starting 2B, and he gave us negative WAR last year, he was so lost. I think we have 4-5 guys like Rodriguez at AAA and AA.

I, too, am finding Fletcher frustrating, and I'm hoping he can get on a little bit of a roll sometime soon. But it happens. Trades don't work out. It it starts to happen that NO trades are working out, like Rick Hahn's luck, then I'll start to believe that they're not taking the advice of their scouts, or they're using MLB's prospect rankings or something stupid like that. Our minor league system sucks, not because really good prospects are being misled into bad habits that ruin their talent, but because we have a bunch of one good tool guys who we're waiting on to look like the guy from 3 years ago. And I think Jose Rodriguez is one of those guys. He hits, he just doesn't light it up. It's nice he's good at multiple positions. Not having prospects doesn't mean we have to hang onto non-prospects. The Athletic, Keith Law, SoxMachine, Twitter journalists/bloggers I follow - that was their reaction. A little light, but if this guy develops, look out. I like SoxTalk (as you can tell from how much time I'm here), but I do think it's a bit of a negative echo chamber, as is a lot of White Sox Twitter and other blogs.

Just in 2017, 10-20, I think there were 2-3 guys who have produced more than 3 bWAR. Garret Whitlock for the Yankees, JR Sears, and a guy for the Astros. Twins had one, too. 4 guys. This isn't a high-percentage occurrence.

Oh, stop with the silly generalities. Here, watch: The Vizquel and Wes Helms situation should have been a disqualifier. That's an actual argument that I'd respect. Pretending that Hahn/KW got fired because an entry level hire didn't save the organization from itself is ludicrous.

I did not say someone other than Getz. Hahn regularly rostered players clearly in over their heads for the opening day start (May, Colas, Micah Johnson). Again, if Getz was such a crappy director, and now GM, and if I was so clearly wrong, you wouldn't have to resort to picking at misinterpretations of what I said to have any kind of argument.

It's a weird pivot, when AJ asks, "Where are all the prospects he's developed?" Then has to move the goal-posts to non-blue chip, then to late rounders. Jake Burger wasn't a "blue chip" prospect. He was a bat-first prospect who everyone questioned his ability to stay at 3B. Luis Robert needed coaching on pitch selection and fielding. It's disingenuous to start eliminating successes. I mean, if Chris Getz did such a crappy job as director of player development, you wouldn't have to make special rules to eliminate the people who disprove the claim.

The *professional* opinions I saw grading the Cease trade fall on the "a little light" part of the spectrum. I've not seen anybody with any credibility refer to the trade return as "pretty bad". At best, Jose Rodriguez is a future utility infielder who can't take a walk, and OBPed under .300 while hitting .270. Being on a "top 30 prospect list" doesn't insure a full career starting in the majors. Situational? Like, looking at 2/3 of the PAs at a position is a situation? Seriously, if you try, you can even make drafting Frank Thomas look like a dumb decision.

Because Ramos and Elko probably got way more ABs in front of Grifol than they should have. Nobody talks about Elko being a serious prospect. Ramos may be up this year, but he may be a good year away. Shew and Sosa should have been getting the ab's that Ramos was getting.

And a lot of people here aren't very good and figuring out what's a joke, and what's not. All I saw was a dude walk out there and shut down one of the best offenses in the game for 7 innings.

Oh, and just for the record, no 10th rounders taken in 2017, 2018 or 2019 made any noticeable impact in the majors, to date. So another stupid talking point dies a lonely death.

Who gets the ABs that Moose took away? I think most people here agreed the Moose signing was meant to push or replace Sheets. If there's another lefty 1B in the upper minors who suffered for those 46 PA's I'd be happy to hear about it. And it's weird that everybody, to a person, will say that Reinsdorf doesn't want to pay 2 managers, so Grifol had to stay. But Getz decided to keep him. Please don't say he should quit.

That is a demonstrably wrong statement. Getz was involved in the "development" of Robert, Jimenez, Burger, etc. If you're going to say that Getz hasn't developed anybody, you are wrong.

Proving my point further. I don't care if you give him credit or not. Turning him back into a starter again was not the obvious move. Making him closer and trading him in July was the easiest, most obvious move. Half the board, here, screamed about ramping him up in under a few years.

No you wouldn't.

Crazy that he is as inarticulate when it comes to describing his problem with Getz as Director of Development as the naysayers, here. As I look at the 2017-2020 drafts, I see pitchers who either were slowed by injury, or when they got to AAA, they were junk-ballers who could barely hang on at that level. 2018's draft is notable in that 10 players, as I've mentioned, progressed to the majors. Davis Martin would be in our starting rotation right now if not for his TJS. Steele Walker and Conner Pilkington were developed enough to trade for upgrades to the MLB roster. Cody Heuer - good arm. Traded. Weaker, later round dudes were developed to be utility or bullpen arms, as expected. AJ keeps going to the same, "aside from the successes, it's all failures" BS. Why doesn't he get to claim 1st rounders as successes? Luis Robert was developed. Jake Burger was developed. Again, I'm not "defending" Chris Getz. It's insulting to get lazy arguments that don't even make sense thrown out there and have to pretend that somebody just said something prescient, just because the mob is all shouting the same nonsensical BS.

It has been proven otherwise. Everybody screamed about hiring from within. Getz brought in people from other organizations. He's changing the focus of international scouting. We'll see what the 2024 draft looks like. But to declare it to be a continuation of Hahn/KW is just lazy. Again, I get not liking the hire, and being slow to offer any positive feedback on anything until he shows he's not a lapdog. Great. But there are clear differences in approach. Keeping Nastrini and Montgomery at AAA to further develop is one clear difference. Weird how all the people who were wailing about Nastrini making the rotation after only a small amount of AAA innings aren't stepping up and voicing their approval for starting him off in Charlotte. I get it that the Clevenger signing mutes everything else.