Texsox

True. This one is on Hahn for no depth.

I think the Madrigal trade was about as even as could be expected. Both teams knew they had time bombs on their hands. I suspect they also knew they were receiving time bombs. Thinking we could get another half season at current level out of Kimbrel wasn't the worse prediction. Knowing Nicky wasn't going to play more than 60 or 70 games a year was another solid prediction. Good trade for both teams.

It's always a hot take, momentary ranking.

We use to call it being polite. Having good manners.

@TheKidsCanPlay Now let's think how the Sox could have a top five GM. I see the first question is will they attract someone with that resume or will they need to sit on an acorn and grow them? My guess is they will need to grow them. Unless we want to gamble on billionaire new owner hires the best at any price. I'm not holding my breath. So we now can merge this with every fire and sell thread. I think Hahn deserves another shot, with another franchise. But it's time for a change.

I'm sorry it came off as challenging, I was trying to challenge my own. I think this intersects the area of a coach's experience and growth. My philosophy in business was hire good people, support them, and get out of their way. I recognized my way wasn't the only way. Forcing a unified approach sounds good but my experience tells me there are unintended consequences. Coaching golf I'm continually looking for new ideas to give my teams an edge. I have an analogous situation to the Sox in that my best players have outside professionals they work with on their swings then I get them. I focus on their mental game, shot selection, and practice focus. Ten years ago I would see things that they were doing and thinking that's not going to work and try to force my philosophy on them. I quickly realized that was wrong. Now I look at those moments as a chance to learn. Example, one of my best players pulled out her range finder for a pitch of about 20 yards. I've taught that shot is pure touch, you have to feel the shot, not use a formula. But her pro is a friend of mine and someone I really respect. A five minute chat with him and I'm a believer in shooting the distance as a way to develop feel. I'll encourage all my players to do that. By the way the pitch was 18 yards. Just a little less than her dead hands waist to waist shot. Tap in to save par.

I really feel bad for the marquee players who defended the PGA. They look really foolish right now. All the money stuff in golf and sports in general is really starting to wear me down to the point of not following millionaires fighting with each other on who should have more millions. I'm following college golf and USGA events more.

While it's a step in the right direction let's look at Mark Cuban and the Mavs. In 23 years of ownership one championship and it took about 15 years to get there. And that's in basketball where fortunes seem to shift a lot quicker than other sports. There is so much wrong with this franchise that needs working on that it will take a long time to really fix it.

Damn, that's the best post I've read in a long time. ?

Hasn't that been the problem for a long time? Rarely are there any options for the manager that doesn't create a problem while fixing another. White Sox baseball is filling a hole by digging a hole. In my day . . . . . . It was the same s%*#. Nothing changes but the names on the back.

Thank you. I really enjoyed thinking about this. Whenever something seems so obvious and easy to me yet people don't seem to be doing it, I ask why? As much as we want to think so, we didn't corner the market on stupid baseball people. We know the system needs to be better. I think we all also know the answers can't be that easy or every system would be pumping out championship caliber players. We usually point to the same couple of franchises. Their coaches and front office people have left but haven't been able to replicate that same success elsewhere. Another thought here. The goal is the system should be to produce a MLB players. So using 2nd base as an example. I really don't care if any of the current group of potential 2nd baseman ever put on a Sox uniform in Chicago. If they get traded for someone who does, or even if we trade 2nd for left and left for center and center for 2nd, we have someone on the roster. So I can't rank home grown roster fillers very highly as a yardstick. I'll trade most prospects for MLB ready. (I'm willing to change my mind on this next part), the first yardstick I think is valid is how well is the MLB roster? I can understand a strong roster at the top and thin below. A strong system but weak MLB team might sell some tickets and build fan support but do we really need to watch more guys falter between AAA and MLB before we suspect fools gold over 24 carat? BRING HIM UP!! BRING HIM UP!! SEND HIM DOWN!! Of course the best of the best franchises have both. It won't happen in my lifetime.

Would you say then a good organization would or wouldn't have one consistent approach throughout the organization?

I agree with everything you are saying but can't figure out how it translates to actual coaching. Using the Ryan and Maddux examples, what are you aligning? The coach has those two guys in a bullpen session what should they have aligned? What makes sense to me is you have those two in AA, evaluate each individually and prioritize x number of things they need to work on to reach the MLB team. Each player's list will be different. Let's say there are six items. At some point there is enough progress that the player advances to AAA. In AA items 1, 3, 5, and 6 were the main concerns. Now they are in AAA and 2 and 4 move to the top. They still have the other four to continue to work on but the priority changes. A quality system to me should be able to develop a power pitcher and a control pitcher. It shouldn't have only one type of player they can develop. You need to develop guys that can hit for average and guys that hit for power.

Help me out here. I was talking with a couple coaches I know who played in two different farm systems and I wasn't doing a good job explaining your points. Here's the question they asked. You draft Nolan Ryan (power pitcher) and Greg Maddux (control pitcher) in the same year. What would you be teaching each of them to do the same and what would you allow them to do differently? And if they are showing some success, but you hire a new MLB coach with new ideas, do you force those changes on them? I couldn't really answer that. Mostly trying to understand what gets taught to everyone at every level. What they believed worked the best were the coaches that collaborated. What's worked for you in the past, what hasn't, what do we need to do to get you to the next level? The concept sounds great, it's the specifics that I can't grasp.

So when you bring in someone like Katz with different ideas do you explain the approach he has to teach to match the rest of the organization, hope the coaches below him adapt quickly to his ideas, or fire them all and allow him to hire a staff of pitching coaches? Or do you reject any candidate with ideas different than what had been taught in the minors to avoid the major changes like Fulmer is talking about? I like the idea of hiring a new guy and firing everyone. I think it's an interesting organization question. Next thought, let's say the organization is all in on vertical integration, would it fail because these players and coaches just aren't that good or is it that simple of a change for a dramatic improvement?

That's great old school coaching and probably will be in fashion again soon. Modern coaching is based on the idea you have to find an approach that works for each unique player to reach their potential. Different people are motivated in different ways, learn in different ways, and improve in different ways. I believe that's where the coaching staff is failing. They force players into molds they aren't fitting. Regardless obviously it's not working. The ultimate goal is winning at the MLB level. I don't care where the system ranks if the MLB team is winning. Using an extreme example to illustrate this point. If you emptied all the talent from the system in a trade for three All Star level players, winning a WS, the system would bottom out, but have served it's primary function. We're at the worst situation, failing at the MLB level and have a shitty farm system.

I agree the organization's coaching doesn't produce results as well as other organizations. I'm not exactly clear what you mean by coach consistently across all levels.

From high school.

Our first question of the staff is who are the local writers and what are they writing about? The second is what fiction do you have that is set here? I'm a promiscuous reader.

I cherish independent book stores. It's a vacation stop in every town.

If I can't get books in heaven, I'm not going.

When I'm not a suffering Sox fan I'm a high school golf coach. For us to play in tournaments there are 10 steps that need to be completed. Tracking them all is getting more stressful each year as more requirements are placed on me. So I'm trying to figure out how to automate the process a bit more. Once I decide on a tournament I need to 1. Email Tournament Director 2. Download entry form 3. Fill out Purchase Requisition (Adobe Acrobat) 4. Verify PO entered by bookkeeper (received email?) 5. Arrange Transportation (on line form) 6. Notify Players (SportsYou chat for just those players) 7. Notify Attendance (email with names and student ID) 8. Enter Substitute Request (online system) 9. Create sub plans 10. Enter expense in ledger. Two possible accounts kept currently on a Google Sheet. Rinse/lather/repeat 70 times per year. I'm willing to invest in software, hardware, whatever to make this easier. I tried to have the school lower my coaching stipend so I could officially add a second assistant but was turned down. I may just pay someone on campus to handle it. I tell myself I coach kids for free, the pay goes for this.

Exactly. I think we all know everything wrong is his fault and anything positive was just luck. Let's get back to Kenny making the decisions.