SoxBlanco

Absolutely. He’s simply the best. The Benetti/Hummel combo was always my favorite pairing. Too bad we don’t get that combo anymore.

Acuña will be the primary center fielder this season.

But Gerrit Cole didn’t play in the Big 10.

I know you don’t like that people are already penciling him in as the #1 pick, but where do you stand on Roch as a player? Is there someone else you prefer at this point, like Emerson or LeBron?

I’ll fully take the blame if he has a bad year.

First game is tonight, not tomorrow. Starts at 7 PM central time.

Yep. This pretty much sums up how I feel. Did he misspeak? No chance Is it embarrassing? Yes Should a GM know this detail? Absolutely Does it really matter? No Would the trade have been made even if he knew he wasn’t a switch hitter? 100%

You did not enter this specific conversation with stats. These were your first two posts after the “fixing” discussion started: ”In a question asked about who they FIXED, you gave four guys that haven't yet taken a swing in anger for the Chicago White Sox.” ”Mostly that you didn't really answer the question, you asked the question you wanted to answer, and answered it instead, after catching a tone about the question daring to be asked in the first place.” When people refer to you derailing threads, those are the exact type of comments they are talking about. It’s not always just baseball discussion and stats with you. You have an issue with WestEddy, and you never hesitate to start shít with him.

But if you’re going to play that game, then couldn’t people also say this: “Why does Getz get blamed for the team’s failures when he was director of player development? We can’t just assume those players would have succeeded if someone else was in charge.” And I’m not claiming those are my thoughts/feelings. I’m just saying nobody can assume anything in an alternate universe, so it’s okay to be optimistic about the what unfolded last season with several players.

Ha! Thanks for the mention. Nobody responded to my question about that phrase, so I’m going to assume it’s just a trendy phrase that caught on, similar to “I didn’t have that on my bingo card.” There’s a non zero chance I’ll use it at some point.

If we’re going to blame the Sox for not being able to develop prospects that we drafted or traded for when they don’t pan out, then they should certainly get credit for developing Colson, especially if you consider the struggles he had early last year. If we are strictly talking semantics here with the word “fix”, then so be it. But they should absolutely get credit for developing him.

Yeah, I might have made it too busy. Fixed. Thank you.

Done. Let’s hope he makes that first pick and no-brainer decision.

This guy deserves his own thread to track how he does throughout the season. First series is five days away against UC San Diego. Credit goes to @Bob Sacamano for the thread title.

Good call. This board or the FutureSox board?

Will this be our designated Roch-Watch thread? They open up in five days with a series against UC San Diego.

Stupid question here, but why did the phrase “non zero chance” become so popular over the last handful of years? I don’t even understand it. I would just say “there’s a chance he could force his way into an OD rotation spot”. What does the “non zero” part add to it? Doesn’t “a chance” already imply that it’s non zero? If there was no chance, I wouldn’t say there’s a chance. And @Chicago White Sox, this is not meant to call you out in any way. Not sure why I’m choosing to ask now, but I’ve always wondered about that.

It has been like that for me also. Not just you. Also, I thought Hays would play LF. @Chicago White Sox, was that an accidental mix up, or are you expecting him to play RF?

Here you go:

Thanks. I totally missed the back end of the other thread where you and Baron said the deal is dead now.

If this is someone Boston wants to dump, does that mean the prospect we get is better than the prospect we give away? Or does the fact that Boston might include money change things?

That’s a fair opinion. But when you phrase it like “Then he can’t…”, you make it sound like anybody who has a setback is automatically disqualified from being considered the best player in a system.

Hypothetically, if the White Sox acquire Jordan Hicks, would they be acquiring him to be a starter or reliever?

Huh? You’re saying elite talent can’t have setbacks, and if they do, they can’t be considered the best player in a system?

I’ve gotten tricked twice in a 9 hour period, thinking this would be a thread about prospects moving up a level.