Balta1701

I would agree, that is an awful lot of LH bullpen-only arms. Not counting Drohan, that's 10% of a 40 man roster, whereas normally 1 or 2 LH relievers is normal, which is 7.7% of a 26-man roster (or 3.8% if you had only 1). That's just collecting LH relievers. They also have LH relief pitcher Fraser Ellard in camp. Ky Bush is there too and is also LH, although for now he's a starter.

Are there no other potential relievers on the current White Sox 40 man roster? I see quite a few, and there's numerous other minor leaguers in camp who could be brought up with a roster spot if one was available.

A 26 year old who has never made the big leagues, who requires a 40 man spot on a team without many available 40 man spots, who has a minor league walk rate of 5 BB/9IP, and a minor league ERA of 4.2 is a guy who has a chance to be part of the future? I guess in terms of "he's been designated for assignment" is an activity that would have to happen in the future.

I would be excited if I heard a positive report about Cease's spring velocity. Or Crochet's. Or Kopech's.

I am absolutely hoping for the opposite. Rushing the guy from AA because you have to fill a spot on your competitive roster that is totally competitive and definitely competitive is a Rick Hahn classic. Montgomery was hurt for a good portion of last year, has 218 plate appearances at AA, and a .218 batting average at AA. Let him play his way up. Give him 2 good months at AA if he's healthy, then move him up to Charlotte, and if he's still strong there, then bring him up later in the season. If he has any more injuries or struggles with anything, take your time and wait until next year - if you wait until April 2025 you might even have a shot at a compensatory pick for him being an opening day callus.

Results like a team the GM thought was competitive in a weak division that spent a season at each others throats, where basically everyone underperformed, where they were sloppy and unfocused, and where they lost 101 games? Tell me how I shouldn’t judge Grifol based on his team’s underperformance last year. They had the talent of a 75 win team. Fine, this wasn’t where they wanted to be, but they played like a 67 win team in the first half, so bad that they had to trade people away. Multiple veterans ripped them after they left, all the way to literally yesterday. How many seasons do we have to wait for before judging him? In spring 2025 do we have to hear that we can’t judge the coach until we see the results? 26? 27? Is Grifol still someone we are waiting on in 2028? 2029? Maybe he gets better in season 8, after all it’s unfair to judge any coach based on their first 7 seasons.

I do actually think they tried for Wheeler, but they weren't willing to step up and declare "We are going to put the highest offer out for this guy". There's lots of components about that. There's the team's hesitation to actually go out and buy guys that are really good fits. There's the fact that they blew $50 million on trash the offseason before that.

Well he’s 26 and has a .747 OPS in two seasons at AAA with a .214 batting average.

Thats rough, you can’t check out the whole year? Ick, that’s not worth what you’d win.

They are actually super well understood. In general they’re not worth the money, especially if the entire stadium is publicly financed. They’re usually awful deals for taxpayers. This concept is a little different from a normal one since it’s truly a blighted area that may not otherwise be developed. Some money going to put a stadium here is justified. But not the government paying for the entire stadium and a large fraction of the rest if the development.

2023: “This team is a 75 win team in all the projections, but Pedro Grifol is going to do a good job and get them up to 88 wins.” 2024: “This team is a 62 win team in the projections but Pedro Grifol is going to do a good job and get them up to 72 wins.”

I think Jerry absolutely has to convince the taxpayers since those are voters. Whether it’s a primary or a general election contest, if this deal is super unpopular then it will appear in campaign ads this year. The primary is March 19. Im usually ok with a representative democracy as mostly I see direct democracy creating messes. Representation should involve people making trade offs and telling the voters why they got a good deal. So far everything tells Me this is a really bad deal on paper, and I’ve seen zero that shows me different in any coherent way.

If this is a win win, if the city and state are going to come out of this well; then where is the detailed set of tax and economic analyses that support this? Show that to Sox fans and to taxpayers. Let the plan market itself if it’s such a win. What is Reinsdorf’s opening argument? “Give me all the money or your team walks”. First public interview, opening lines of the Crains article are a threat. If it’s a win-win, then you shouldn’t be threatening your fans and taxpayers. Again.

And if Jerry cares more about getting a deal that screws over the citizens of Illinois than he does about either a great stadium or making money, should white sox fans just give in and say that’s all we can do?

If this spot were to be developed, there are significant financial benefits for the city. Bringing this land into the tax base long term, driving more traffic to this part of the city, allowing expansion of the core of the city in this direction, all of these are benefits. Not having to maintain and secure this open land is also a benefit. Having the City contribute some of what it would benefit from this project is not an unreasonable ask. Someone has to pay to renovate that land and hook it to city services. The city paying 1/2 of a $4 billion project though is pretty much insane. Even for Foxconn, they were supposed to build a $10 billion factory, and in exchange got $3 billion in subsidies. It was entirely fraudulent due to negligence by the governor, but the numbers here are astronomical and nonsensical. This makes the Foxconn offer in Wisconsin look responsible. If the government is paying for 50% of the project, then they should just socialize the entire project and pay for it themselves.

Yeah we know why no one has built here, there's significant money required to be spent to bring in resources. I can't build a building on the 78 site right now because there's no water hookups, there's no sewage hookups. Power lines. Road connections. Stabilized ground. There's significant work required to turn this land into something of value to the city, and that's part of the problem. A big part. You have no choice but to put a few hundred million dollars into the 78 to turn it into usable, non-vacant land. You aren't going to put that much money into the land unless someone is actually developing the whole thing, and no one will want to put that much money into this land if it only drives low-density development. Combine that with a previously corrupt owner of the land and you have all the reasons why no development has done with the 78 property. I could build a working, functional building on one of those parking lots right now. There's plumbing hookups. The park has flushing toilets and running water and power.

Would there be no one willing to build apartment complexes or businesses in an area of Chicago with easy access to I-94?

You tell me how to read this otherwise. Direct quote. How else do you read "The team will be worth more out of town" other than a statement that they might leave town? https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/02/22/column-jerry-reinsdorfs-about-face-on-the-white-sox-possibly-leaving-chicago-is-history-and-hypocrisy-repeating-itself/ Hell, I can't get the full article, but literally the Crain's article starts with this! https://www.chicagobusiness.com/sports/chicago-white-sox-need-new-stadium-compete-stay-city-jerry-reinsdorf

This was worth a shot from their side, but if they didn't have anyone tell them "Hey, this rich guy who people joke about having half the city hate him and having the feeling be mutual might not be the best marketing guy", such that they'd have some backup plans, then they deserve it too. It would have taken 5 minutes for us to explain to them, for free I should note, exactly what the risks were. If you're making billion dollar decisions involving the White Sox, maybe have someone on the team who understands the White Sox.

He deserves it! They could have been marketing this as a big positive, instead the only thing he's got is "Do this or the team may move and totally that won't be my fault".

Aren't there clearly 2 different teams competing for the same pool of money right now though?

Here's the straight up problem. Would it be normal for your city to not only do all those things, but to also literally pay 100% of Amazon's construction costs? You didn't say that or allege that, but that's basically the setup we're seeing. A $1-1.2 billion ballpark, with a $1-$1.2 billion subsidy for the ballpark, combined with an extra $600-$900 million that includes the TIF district and various other tax breaks already established. As far as I can tell, with what Reinsdorf has asked for, the state would be better off just buying the White Sox, building the new ballpark, then selling the White Sox for $1 billion more than they paid for it once the ballpark is complete.

If that is true then the developer has failed. This should be the type of place that is a spot in the city people want to go and do things on non-gamedays. The 81 days should support the existence of good businesses, bars, green space, etc, by providing them a market. You should want to go to this spot otherwise.

Have you seen the list of currently available free agents? The White Sox can absolutely be picky about which bounce back or tradeable candidates they offer money to.