-
Posts
180,830 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
442
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by southsider2k5
-
-
28 minutes ago, Tony said:
They made the wrong choice, but I do think there was some logic to it. I still understand the idea of not wanting to bring his “baggage” in, but that was also an inditement of the Bears having a shitty/bad locker room, not being able to support him. Also, if they totally wiffed on who they picked instead, it would be worse, but Wright has graded out and played very well for the Bears, and without him, literally they would have to replace all 5 players on the OL this offseason.
I'd still pick Carter over Wright in a re-draft, but it's not like they took Velus Jones Jr. instead of Carter.
At that time, this dude could have ended up in jail as a real possibility. I get the thought behind this non-pick for sure. Yeah it didn't work out, but if this dude destroyed himself with the Bears, which was a real possibility, that would have been WAY worse. 8 other teams also passed on him.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said:
Why would the state not give the Sox a sweetheart deal to stay at the Rate? The past deal is irrelevant to an existing stadium with no other obvious use case.
My guess? Because the upgrade of the near south side would be worth more to them than what has happened around the current location, which is basically nothing.
-
5 minutes ago, Quin said:
Brandon Drury is a peak KW/Hahn move
Except they would have gotten him the year he collapsed, and not the year after like Getz.
-
2
-
-
So much for people not caring, and not watching.
-
20 hours ago, WestEddy said:
Nope. You're playing word games. You guys ask me a question, and I'll give you a full, good faith answer. I thought this board was a little more jokey when I amped up last winter. But apparently, me being light about the bullpen and "Nicky .300" really hurt some people.
Here's a list of pitchers who could very well be vying for spots in the AAA rotation:
Iriarte, Nastrini, Eder, W. Gonzalez, Ky Bush, Mason Adams, Justin Dunn, and Thorpe will probably rehab there. That's 8 starters.
AA: Schultz, Tyler Schweitzer, Gowens, Juan Carella
That's only 4, but maybe they get Adams back until the logjam at AAA clears. Some of the guys behind them will be pushing quickly.
High-A: Hagen Smith, Grant Taylor, Tanner McDougal, Shane Murphy, Lucas Gordon, Tommy Vail, Aldrin Batista, Seth Keener, John Bockenstedt
9 guys. Some of these guys, like Bockenstedt might be bounced out or to the bullpen. But already, they're backing up. Batista is borderline AA. Hagen Smith will move quickly. There might be lingering injuries, but you see the jam forming.
Low-A: Jake Peppers, Ricardo Brizuela, Carlton Perkins, Justin Sinibaldi
You also have Christian Oppor, Mathias LaCombe, Blake Larson, Maximo Martinez. There's a couple more I'm not recognizing because of bad numbers, but they have stuff, and Getz still wants them.
Some guys here will argue that we only really have 2-1/2 pitching prospects in the system. Schultz, Hagen Smith and Grant Taylor. But there's a whole slew of these guys who are actual prospects that need to throw innings every 5. I just listed 29 guys for 20-24 rotation spots. No, they're not all sexy, and some will be an easy call to toss in the bullpen. But you read and listen to the same stuff I do. To pretend that you don't know any of this is silly. We have a glut of pitching, and we'll be adding to it in this year's draft.
So anybody thinking I'm "full of it" is just being argumentative.
The fun thing is that before making a post like this, you just made a contention that we don't have enough pitchers for MLB, yet there is this entire list of AAA pitchers who are soooo important. There are plenty of future relievers in that list at AAA, and plenty that would have been just fine in MLBs pen instead of wasting low level guys. This also would have lightened this panic situation of too many pitchers in the minors. Instead of this, we artificially blocked the guys from moving up by bringing in more pitchers at the top. Realistically this is Chris Getz admitting that the guys at the top are guys he doesn't trust, and he'd rather block them with middle aged relievers than actually use them at the next level.
-
1 hour ago, WestEddy said:
Hot garbage? Maybe we just use words differently. You don't think a pitcher having success in the minors is a "pitching prospect" unless he's ranked top 50 in the game, basically. And a guy who has shown he can throw consistent quality starts in the bigs is "Hot garbage".
See, you and others can keep declaring every player is garbage, and when that player actually does well, or brings back a good player in trade, nobody cares that you were wrong. I say the word "lockdown" in a heated back and forth once, and that might as well be my screen name.
Being negative is a low risk proposition. I guess that's why so many just blurt out negative things. Being slightly negative with a sunny disposition, like I am, gets you branded a kook.
I think this is why you get so mad at the mention of 121 losses, as any attempt to characterize the season that just happened seem to draw an attack post from you.
Again, in the 125 year history of major league baseball, and all of the individual team seasons that make up that long history, no team has EVER lost 121 games in a single season of baseball. Never. It literally the worst season in the history of major league baseball. It was the sum of these players that created this season. By their very definition, they were the worst collective season of individual players ever to be all on the same team, at the same time.
So while you spend time trying to make this notion a character flaw in those who point it out, it does not change the season that just happened. It isn't sunny, or negative, or a kook or whatever else name calling you want to turn it into. It was historically worse than ever. Maybe if you quit attacking people for reminding you of this undisputable fact, every discussion thread wouldn't devolve into exactly this cesspool.
-
1 hour ago, WestEddy said:
I think you meant to say that they sold one asset for another asset (and necessity, really) they felt could deliver a quick bump.
Nope. Quite literally they are paying tomorrow for not investing today because they can't "afford" it, yet are still buying a luxury item.
-
5 minutes ago, WestEddy said:
Right. One can either buy a Lotto ticket for a 2029 drawing, or you can get a job, and start drawing a paycheck in 2 weeks.
It's also a thing to shore up the bullpen using a teenager who's 5 years away, then trade him for another teenager who's 5 years away, or maybe even a shortstop who's 2 years away.
If you want a finance analogy the Sox have a chance to either invest long term, or buy a luxury item on a credit card. The Sox are using their credit card with a 550 credit score, then going to get a payday loan to make it until payday.
-
7 minutes ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said:
I certainly wouldn’t count on that
Not a chance of this happening in reality.
-
7 minutes ago, WestEddy said:
An 18-year-old pitcher who will spend the summer in the complex league won't be of help at the big league level for 5 years.
I'm glad you agree the Sox have a decent farm system. We do have a glut of pitching. There's no problem trading an A-ball reliever for bullpen depth. I'm sorry you don't think so.
This is quite literally the point. I am glad you FINALLY got it. When you are 4-5 years from contention, you want guys who fit that window, not guys who will probably be retired at that point.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, WestEddy said:
The rotation should be more settled on OD than last year, with 5 strong starters. Last year, Soroka, Flexen and Nastrini were not major league ready. 5 of Perez, Cannon, Martin, Burke, Thorpe, Wilson, Shane Smith,
Nobody said that roster problems are a thing of the past. You even just argued with me when I said starting pitching in the minors is facing a bit of a logjam (roster problems) at some levels.
What is it with you guys, and the word "excuse"? To say that they made bad roster decisions isn't an excuse. The words "reason" and "excuse" aren't interchangeable. Learn them, okay?
I don't care what you believe. (I can feel you and Tony rising up to now argue that I care...) If Bannister and Katz can't teach a new pitch to a 30 year old reliever who has already experienced some success in the big leagues, then there's no point to anything.
Is this is a Steven Wilson reference/
-
6 minutes ago, WestEddy said:
Which is all expected. I'm not saying, "Hmmm, we have 29 guys for 20 spots. We better trade 9 of them."
It's not radical to say that some guys are probably going to start at a level below what their development calls for just because of a logjam.
That's not radical, that's pretty normal for a decent farm system. That doesn't mean we need to start wheeling them out for old and mediocre middle relievers. Stuff is going to happen, and just like we do now with the last rebuild, the people who think we have too much depth will probably be wrong. s%*# happens, especially with pitchers. If nothing else injuries are going to get quite a few of these guys just because of pure numbers of injuries that happen to pitchers.
-
6 minutes ago, WestEddy said:
Well, whatever happened last year, between a bad starting rotation to begin with that just ate up the bullpen early, a bad manager, some bad roster decisions in camp, misreading how to augment what their pitchers had to throw, communication with pitchers who had a bad back, one would expect them to have ironed that out this time around.
Sure, but now you are telling us that the rotation should be good, the bullpen should be good, roster problems are a thing of the past, and our pitching development is going to be fixing all of those problems, and I am supposed to believe that based on what, exactly? This is going to be a mediocre to bad rotation, with a non-present offense. There are plenty of mediocre arms around the system and free agency that we can fill innings with, without wasting futures for them. This is going to be another 100 loss team, and we are supposed to be sinking NOW resources into it? It doesn't add up, especially after all of these problems you are detailing from last year as an excuse, and not an on going reality.
-
2 hours ago, WestEddy said:
Nope. You're playing word games. You guys ask me a question, and I'll give you a full, good faith answer. I thought this board was a little more jokey when I amped up last winter. But apparently, me being light about the bullpen and "Nicky .300" really hurt some people.
Here's a list of pitchers who could very well be vying for spots in the AAA rotation:
Iriarte, Nastrini, Eder, W. Gonzalez, Ky Bush, Mason Adams, Justin Dunn, and Thorpe will probably rehab there. That's 8 starters.
AA: Schultz, Tyler Schweitzer, Gowens, Juan Carella
That's only 4, but maybe they get Adams back until the logjam at AAA clears. Some of the guys behind them will be pushing quickly.
High-A: Hagen Smith, Grant Taylor, Tanner McDougal, Shane Murphy, Lucas Gordon, Tommy Vail, Aldrin Batista, Seth Keener, John Bockenstedt
9 guys. Some of these guys, like Bockenstedt might be bounced out or to the bullpen. But already, they're backing up. Batista is borderline AA. Hagen Smith will move quickly. There might be lingering injuries, but you see the jam forming.
Low-A: Jake Peppers, Ricardo Brizuela, Carlton Perkins, Justin Sinibaldi
You also have Christian Oppor, Mathias LaCombe, Blake Larson, Maximo Martinez. There's a couple more I'm not recognizing because of bad numbers, but they have stuff, and Getz still wants them.
Some guys here will argue that we only really have 2-1/2 pitching prospects in the system. Schultz, Hagen Smith and Grant Taylor. But there's a whole slew of these guys who are actual prospects that need to throw innings every 5. I just listed 29 guys for 20-24 rotation spots. No, they're not all sexy, and some will be an easy call to toss in the bullpen. But you read and listen to the same stuff I do. To pretend that you don't know any of this is silly. We have a glut of pitching, and we'll be adding to it in this year's draft.
So anybody thinking I'm "full of it" is just being argumentative.
Your contention starts with NONE of these guys making the major league roster, and/or the IL, which seems pretty crazy to me. It also assumes no injury problems in any of the rest of the levels, which is also abjectly unrealistic.
-
1 hour ago, WestEddy said:
The entire Booser/Fajardo conversation has been that Getz is betting he gets back more in value for Booser than Fajardo was worth coming out of Dominican rookie ball. And he'll get 4 months of bullpen coverage. We all understand that, and you don't need to belabor what, in fact, has been the whole crux of the Booser conversation all along.
I'd be shocked if you called any Getz acquisition mediocre.
The irony being the best reliever flip he has had so far? A minimum wage guy the Sox drafted and developed themselves. The guys they have traded for? Yeah, not so much.
-
40 minutes ago, JoeC said:
The way I see it… what upside do the younger guys really have?
Drury’s upside is higher IMO.At least he has a history of doing SOMETHING at the major league level. I don't want him blocking anyone, but he could also fill some ABs as I am sure there will be plenty of failures and roster grinding going on.
-
2
-
-
17 minutes ago, WestEddy said:
That wasn't intended to be clever. The losses seem to matter to you. Getz is assembling bullpen depth that he didn't last year so that the bullpen isn't a sieve.
I don't really think setting the loss record was a "plan". You guys keep bringing up picking no higher than 10th like there's some correct strategic planning that should have happened around that pick. They pick first in rounds 2-20. They picked first in the Rule 5 draft. They have first priority on waiver claims through opening day.
The losses do bother me, and I have expressed that from time to time. There's a whole list of roster moves, trades, signings and such that I didn't like, and voiced it when they happened. I don't need to keep doing that on a daily basis, and express anger over them. It's done.
This not being a part of the "plan" is quite literally the point. We are grinding up the roster for losing over 100 games again, and giving away future pieces again to do it, making it a realistic proposition that we are giving up pieces which could be actually giving up a piece or two that could be helping a team in the future, like we actually need.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said:
Alienating a generation of fans tends to have a long lasting impact on a fanbase. I’m highly skeptical your last sentence is valid but, at this rate, we might not test this theory for another decade.
Sox history shows that Sox fans are a highly mobile bunch of fair weather fans. I look at our attendance history and it's massive oscillations over time as proof.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, WestEddy said:
I pretty much responded to your post, point by point. You don't want the Sox expending talent they control to shore up the major league bullpen. You say they already have what they're acquiring, and that more is available on the market for cheap. I believe they signed the guys they were interested in, and traded for guys who were DFAed that interested them.
I don't see an actual question in your comment, so I'm not sure what else to respond to. I'm sorry my style of writing offends you. It seems to be an actual sticking point, where if I reference something I've been beaten over the head with, you become so distracted, you can't even follow a conversation. Now, I guess you'll get distracted by that sentence, and accuse me of whining about the environment here. All to avoid the simple question of whether losses matter or not. If they do, then Getz needs to shore up the major league bullpen. If they don't, then I'll be glad to never hear about 121 losses again. If both wins and development matter, then good for you, Getz is already multitasking that, some of which requires trading from depth to fill.
If you STILL don't understand that were a team is starting from, which in this case is very literally 121 losses, is the starting point of how roster building for the current and future seasons should look. Expending future resources for a current season bullpen after a 121 win season is just ridiculous.
And again, I will ignore you attempts at insults and whatever else made up stuff you are going to pull in here to distract from you ignoring the main irrefutable point, again.
-
17 minutes ago, WestEddy said:
If winning games in 2025 isn't important, then I look forward to you never referencing 121 losses again. I'm being constantly beaten over the head with "121 losses", like it's killing the fanbase, and when children still pay attention, it causes all sorts of anxiety disorders, denying families bonding opportunities, and it's this cloud of shame I should feel the weight of. Winning games 42-60 matters or it doesn't. If it does, then shoring up the bullpen and creating depth is key to that. If Getz can create value by trading a marginal guy who was able to strike out 16-year-old kids learning the game in a distant land, then parlaying that into a better prospect in July, all the better.
And why do you keep saying 121 wins? Is that auto-correct, or are you setting the bar for this team to break the single season win record by 5 games?
Can you explain how having 6+ starters to find innings for in Kannapolis translates to having a full major league bullpen? Surely you're not suggesting rushing guys like Fajardo and Combs up to the majors. And relying on guys like Bush and Iriarte to step into the bullpen is what left us with a group of 1.4 WHIP set-up throwers last year. Pick a lane. Either you want Getz to build a team that valiantly wins 60 games, or you want him to complete forsake the big club in the service of filling the minor leagues with every body who doesn't run fast enough to get away.
Last year's bullpen was a catastrophe. Layer Grifol's misuse with an historic cloud of bad luck that was so distracting and demoralizing, reliable vets were playing like panicked rookies. (There, I used your mantra. Are you happy?) So yeah, a veteran arm like Tim Hill (who the hoi polloi screamed sucked and didn't even deserve major league innings in the first place) sucked here, then went to a more stable environment, and realized his potential.
Trading an 8th round draft pick is not "dumping" them. You also mention "recent draft pickS" with a plural "S". I can count one "recent" draft pick Getz traded out of the last 4 drafts. Are there any other draft picks he's traded ill-advisedly I don't know about? One guy seems to turn into "multiple" with you.
For someone who likes to talk about people not answering your questions, you literally said nothing here that actually responded to the substance of what was ACTUALLY said. Oh sure, you made up things (again) that weren't actually said, and threw in a few more insults (again), but never actually addressed the actual response.
-
6 minutes ago, WestEddy said:
Because "future pieces" are the only commodity we have a glut of. You can continue to complain that the Sox won't go out and start assembling a $100M bullpen. It's not going to happen right now.
You claim this team is about 4-5 years off from being competitive. Do you actually believe we should be signing bullpen arms to long term deals who will be around in 5-8 years? That's sillly.
and Of course Cam Booser and Tyler Gilbert shouldn't be getting paid $5-7M. They're pre-arb, for heaven's sake.
Literally none of what I said, is accurately reflected here. This entire post is made up for you to create an argument that wasn't there and attempt to knock down.
There are plenty of mediocre middle relievers out there who the Sox could populate this roster with, and would not require the movement of their own young talent, nor $5 to $7 million dollars a season (which is your made up number, not mine). The Sox have already brought in back end guys in the million to two million dollar range who will fill innings just as well as a Steven Wilson did last year, and cost us nothing for the future.
The results out of the 2025 bullpen literally do not matter. The foundation of this organization is a 121 win team. Any effort to win games in 2025 is inherently wasted, and any resources given up to do it are giving up potential bullets for the timeline where we might actually have a chance to do something. If we want to trade young talent for middle relievers in 4-5 years, because we have a team where the 5th and 6th innings actually matter, do it then, like a normal organization.
If the current mantra that we have this amazing group of pitchers whispers from development all of the way up to the major league level is actually true, we should not even need to waste resources trading for these guys in the future, because this amazing development program should be turning them out from guys just like Combs and Fajardo. The theory being not that every guy hits, but if you collect a critical mass of those types of players into your amazing system, you can turn enough of them into major leaguers that the failures don't matter because they are overwhelmed by your successes. We should be in a mass talent collection phase with a focus on guys who will be on a major league roster in 2030, not 2025.
In fact in the short Getz era, we have seen the opposite, where it seems to be the guys who we dump who have higher rates of success after leaving the Sox organization versus the ones who we either bring in from the outside, or promote from the inside, are having within the Sox organization. The fact that we are already quickly dumping Getz recent draft picks, and recent trade acquisitions looks like a red flag that already questioning their own work and processes enough to dump these guys for incredibly low ceiling and older middle relievers.
Their actions and their words do not flow in the same direction.
-
5 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:
None of the arms we got are $5 to $7 million arms.
And most importantly why are we giving up future pieces that actually fit the type of timeline a 121 win team would be on, for arms that will be dead and buried by the time we could actually use back end type bullpen arms to matter in middle relief?
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, WestEddy said:
Okay, you're not going to answer my question.
Money is a resource they don't seem to want to dole out on relief arms at $5-$7M a clip. You will argue that our minor league system is lacking in everything, yet, we don't have a rookie ball arm/low-A bullpen arm to spare to create a bevy of major league bullpen arms to avoid last year's catastrophe.
None of the arms we got are $5 to $7 million arms.
-
9 minutes ago, WestEddy said:
Are you going to pretend to not understand the difference between starting pitchers in low-A ball and a major league bullpen?
I do pretend to understand that if we wanted cheap mediocre relievers we could just as easily spend non-prospect resources on them in the free agent market instead of giving up on what we supposedly do so well instead. Are you going to pretend that our trades aren't flat out contradicting what our chorus line of press is saying about how great we do at this very activity? Why is the only way we can find any relievers by trading for them with the very pitching prospects we are supposed to be so good at developing?
Sox Claim Brandon Eisert, Designate Steven Wilson
in Pale Hose Talk
Posted
Does Chris know, or is the restraining order still in affect?