vilehoopster

"Most of us wanted to see him gone but on a team starved for HRs he's the grass isn't always greener or better the devil you know than the devil you don't choice." I agree with this idea. I get that people are disappointed with Vaughn (and Benintendi too). I blame both of them, with their terrible starts last year, as much an anyone for why the Sox set the all-time loss record. And with Vaughn, we expected so much more from him. But they both were far and away the best (or least bad) power/ home run hitters on the team last year, and probably the same for the upcoming year. So with that said, I don't understand this mentality of "dump Vaughn or don't resign him", or "we should DFA/ flip Benintendi" people. The Sox don't have anyone, anyone for next year with near their power and ability to drive in runs. Why would we just want to get rid of guys (even diappointing/ ungood guys) when the Sox don't anyone else close to as good. Is the goal of these to see the Sox only win 40 or so game again next year? Sometimes it's really hard for me not to believe the people who make these statements about dumping or flipping the Sox better (or again, less-bad) players want the Sox to lose so that they have more ammunition to complain with.

I have only listened to half of it so far, and I usually try to be more opitmistic than other posters on this forum, and I generally defend Getz (What could/ can he do with Jerry stuff?). But what I've heard so far is just general cooperate level "stay the course" and "it's gonna take time" stuff. We've heard it all before FROM HIM over and over. I know he wouldn't go on a podcast to get destroyed, but I really felt both questioners were really throwing him softball questions.

I agree with this 100%. If the guy is good or really good, maybe the Sox should do something really crazy and keep him to help win some more games. When did winning games not become the goal; but instead, the goal became stocking the minors with players who MIGHT be good in a two or three years.

Has anyone else noticed that since NIL and everyone is paying their players, that SEC football is all of a sudden very average at best? It was ironic to hear Saban complaining about players getting paid with NIL money and teams buying players when he and Alabama (and the rest of the SEC) have been paying players illegally for years and years. Off google but shortened with AI: Saban worries that the current NIL landscape allows wealthier schools and alumni networks to provide significantly more lucrative deals to players, creating a "caste system" where some programs have an unfair advantage. Again, my evidence is that the SEC has been embarrassed this year in bowl games. Why is that? Because now paying players is out in the open and everyone is paying their players, not just the SEC

MLB.com put out a video of the top-five White Sox outfield assists from '24. In the few games he played, Fletcher has three of the five shown on the video. I think that says something, especially to all the people saying his defense is terrible, especially when talking about his defense in right field. https://www.mlb.com/whitesox/video/white-sox-s-top-5-outfield-assists-of-2024?t=statcast

Unless the White Sox sign some real quality (or even moderate quality) free agents (does anyone start to think that will happen?), doesn't it seem that the Sox have to do every thing they can do/ give every chance they possibly can to make Vargas and Fletcher passable/ solid/ good major league players. The Sox have to have both of those guys in the lineup starting with spring training and into, at least, the first couple months of the season, maybe longer if we have a cold spring. It just seems that for either or both those guys to have a chance with the Sox, they have to believe the Sox are behind them and that they can make mistakes without being on the chopping block if they/ either one have a crappy spring training or April. If for no other reason, it seems that Sox management would really, really want both to succeed to justify the trades for both of them. And let's be honest, giving up Fedde and Kopech for Vargas is going to take a lot of justification because that trade looks awful, awful right now. Some have suggested that Fletcher will share right field with Slater, which I guess would be fine, a solid outcome for the trade. But I would think the Sox are hoping that Fletcher will take over right field completely. Does anyone not see this happening?

https://www.mlb.com/news/2024-25-mlb-free-agent-fits-for-every-team MLB.com put out of list of "One free agent suggestion for every team". Now Merkin wrote the blurb for the Sox in this MLB article, but I agree with it 100%. I would love for the Sox to sign and bring back Jose Quintana. Like Merkin, I'm not optimistic the Sox management would be willing to put up the money, but I have such fond memories of Quintana that I would really enjoy seeing him in a Sox uniform again. In all honesty, I'm not sure that Quintana would be really much better than whoever the Sox have slated at the bottom of their rotation, but still, I would really like to have him back here throwing for the White Sox. One thing about Quintana, and Sale too. When they were throwing for the Sox, I used to feel so sorry for them both because they always seemed to get so little offensive support. They both seemed never to get enough runs to help them out if they made the slightest mistake while pitching for those old Sox teams. The funny thing is that that Sox lineup and offense back when they both threw for the Sox would be like a Murderers Row compared to the Sox bats/ offense in '24 and probably in '25.

I know many people will go off on this, but I would like to see the Sox resign Chris Flexen. Some people made this joke earlier on this board, but it's probably more or less true: Flexen is probably too expensive for the Sox for this year.

Wasn't the Rule Five guy Shane Smith taken with the idea he would become a starter? Should he be on this list? I think at the very least, Smith sees himself as a starter next year. Didn't I see that in a couple articles after the Sox selected him?

Do the dimensions of the park matter when you never lift the ball and are always hitting it hard through the infield? I remember a month or so listening to the Chuck Garfien podcast with new director of hitting Ryan Fuller. Fuller talked at length about this and that he can do to help a player, and one of the thinks he talked about was getting a player to lift the ball more. I wanted to ask if he discussed lifting the ball with Eloy in his short time there. Somehow I would bet he did. Between the Sox and the Orioles coaching staff, how many players and coaches preached, talked, and worked with Eloy to try to get him to lift the ball more? What do you think: 15 to 20? It never sunk in.

That there is an off-season, two-page, 34 reply thread on this board about a Sox announcer misprononucing a name during a basketball game just shows how hard people are looking for things to complain about. It's just ridiculous. We get it: you're unhappy about the team and the 121 losses. But then again, after you post a few hunderd times (no hyperbole with that few hundred times number, it might over a thousand for few) that Getz, Riensdorf, Sox players and management all completely suck; after doing that over and over and over . . . I guess you're forced to find something new to complain about.

Oldsox and I had the same question at the same time.

So, are you, and Callis, thinking Montgomery are SS or 3rd? If at SS, isn't that hole/ problem solved? As for 2nd base, after Sosa's September, doesn't it also look like the Sox might have very well solved their 2nd base hole? So why Meidroth?

So we should trade Robert to get a young outfielder loaded with offensive and defensive potential? Does anyone else see a weakness in this logic?

Again, an example how people now state as fact that the Sox lost the Cease trade, and the question is very much up in the air (again, I think the Sox won that trade). But the complainers have to misrepresent so that they can justify being pissy and complaining. No poster more than this one.

So the Sox might end up with a pitcher who might be better than Crochet, since it seems very possible that Thorpe might end up better than Cease? And then also end with a few other of the team's top 10 prospects. I state this again: People keep talking like the Sox lost the Cease trade, and that is not anywhere near a fact, and I think it's going to turn out that they won it. But either way, we'll see; it's not yet determined.

This is really an interesting question. It's like the NFL draft question: Do pick a position where you need help, or do you pick the best player/ athlete. I gotta go somewhere in the middle. I think you have to pick between the best of three positions: 1. a relief arm 2. a lefty right fielder 3. a starting arm As weak as the Sox roster is, I have to believe that they will get a solid/ real contributor out of this . . . at least one. (Again, this a statement of how weak the Sox roster is right now.)

Thank you 2Deep for inadvertently helping me out another example of a stat that can be questionable. But I agree with you on WAR. Everyone quotes it as gospel, but there are times when it seems to defy logic and make no sense.

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics" BABIP is one of a ton of new stats that people use to make this or that point. An ERA of 1.23 sounds great, but that means nothing because his BABIP implies he was lucky. Sorry, not buying that. There are so many stats in baseball now, that some stat or another can be use to prove just about any player is bad, great or just lucky. So does that five-game BABIP mean the Sox lost the Cease trade?

Sorry that this is in bold, but I wrote it in google docs to check my grammar and spelling, and when I copy and paste it in, it's in bold and I don't seem able to make the bold go away. Sorry, but no statement meant by being bold. "The asking for high returns is similar to what we got last winter about Cease. Other GMs won't offer anything near what Getz is supposedly asking, and when Getz gets desperate he will accept a lower return" "All the talk is what a big return Cease or Fedde will require and then we end up with a mediocre to bad return." "If you could get a weak return deal, like the one the White Sox got for Cease, that's better than winding up with nothing for him." "Seems to be a thing with Getz. We did the same thing with Cease." One of the things that happens on this board is that someone will make a statement, and everyone will run with it and quote it and it becomes accepted as fact. My best example of this is when people used to complain about having Sheets or Vaughn in the outfield, and they would state that having Sheets/ Vaughn in the outfield, that they were more likely to not call a fly ball and therefore collide with Robert and injure him. This was stated over and over: “Bah, bah and he’s a risk to Robert out there. Or “He’ll injure Robert” And it happened so often that this stupid supposition became accepted as fact, quoted continually as fact as people complained about Sheets’/ Vaughn’s bad defense in the outfield. Yes, they were bad defenders out there, but the idea that they were more likely to collide with Robert was just ridiculous. The newest supposition that now seems to be taking hold is that Sox/ Getz lost the Cease trade, and that it’s a fact. There’s no way that saying the Sox lost that trade can be taken as fact and, to me, it seems very likely that the Sox may have won that trade. Right now, I see that trade is looking as 50/ 50 either for the Sox or for the Padres depending on the health of Thorpe’s arm this next year and going forward. There was a 5 game stretch where Thorpe, as a rookie, had an ERA of 1.23. Certainly better than anything Cease did his first year with the Sox, showing outstanding potential and promise. One could make the argument that with Thorpe alone the trade could be a win for the Sox. Of course, it’s early. And a bigger of course is that a five game stretch means very little, but so does half a season. So to my point: there’s a long way to go before this trade can be judged good or bad for the Sox But . . . if you add in the three other players who also came with Thorpe, two also full of promise and potential, this trade is looking very reasonable. In my opinion, at this early juncture, the Sox are winning with this trade, or at least, breaking even. But there seems no way someone can state as fact and as a starting point for other arguments that the Sox lost the Cease trade.

Excellent point. This didn't occur to me.

I think his being the starting SS is all but a done deal. And I have to say that I agree with that call. Unless he comes in to Spring Ball and is terrible, I really expect to see him at shortstop. With there being no other reasonable option, I really think it's a stretch to say calling him up is rushing him. Yes, he struggled, for a while, in AAA; but he had a .815 OPS in September and has had two really good AFL seasons. Again, I see him at SS and Sosa (after his September) at 2nd as a done deal, and I'm looking forward to watching them there.

The last I heard was back in early September, when we were told that his injury was a bone spur on his elbow. The plan was to shave down the bone spur and that would clear up the problem. Again, that is the last I heard of it. Has anyone heard anything since? Was the surgery successful? Is he throwing or due to begin throwing? Anything?

I disagree completely. For the first time since mid-May, I'm excited for a series. Does knocking the Tigers out of the playoffs, redeem the season? Of course not. But it will be fun and exciting. A real reason to play. Come Sox!! Let's stick it to the Tigers and keep them out of the playoff. I'll be watching.

I'm not as down on some other players as most of the people on this board. But . . . I am absolutely ready for the Gavin Sheets experiment to end. What else do we need to see: he can't hit and he can't field.