Thad Bosley

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 07:42 PM) I'd say Melky over Jones. Honestly, I don't they are very motivated to move Jones right now, they probably figure he can greatly improve his value with some closing experience. I agree. For me, Jones is the bridge to Burdi as the closer in the next (and long overdue) competitive Sox team. Trade Robertson now, hopefully for a return consistent with what we've seen thus far in the rebuild, and then hope Jones plays well enough to bring back another quality return in July. By then Burdi may be ready to step in and take over.

QUOTE (Two-Gun Pete @ Feb 12, 2017 -> 11:19 AM) Also: 7) 1 playoff appearance in 12 years. Despite this, only Ozzie & Ventura have lost their jobs. 8) Ran a highly popular announcer out of Comiskey (Caray), which simultaneously hurt the Sox, & helped the scrubs. 9) Removed all semi-local MiLB affiliates (south bend ), further hurting the Sox regional presence, & simultaneously helping others build a brand & a presence in the region. 10) Moved all affiliates to a part of the country that will never be SOX fans, all in the name of making it cheaper to operate. 11) Underinvested in draft signing bonuses & in the scouting department, & only increasing his investment when MLB came up with a slotting system. 12) Despite having a running joke of a system in terms of position players, Laumann & Bell & KW have jobs for life. And I'm sure I forgot some as well, but I'll leave it to others to add on. 13) The "strategic" decision to NOT negotiate with Scott Boras for the past two decades and therefore not compete for the premium talent on the open market he's represented. That has obviously put the Sox in a competitive disadvantage with those teams who remarkably find a way to deal with the man. Again, if Reinsdorf had a whole bunch of success to point to in the past 20 years to support some legitimacy in that decision, it would be one thing. However, the results point towards an entirely different conclusion.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 11, 2017 -> 11:13 AM) The same Bill Veeck that wanted to sell to Marvin Davis and move the team to Denver? The same Bill Veeck who actually tried to sell the team to Edward DeBartolo, who had the vast resources to not only keep the Sox in Chicago, but in a competitive way worthy of a big market team. And if not for a few "no" votes from some other obviously threatened AL owners in 1980, the team would have been sold to DeBartolo, and not to the Reinsdorf/Einhorn group. Often wonder what the past 36 years would have looked like for our beleaguered franchise had the sale to DeBartolo gone through!

QUOTE (miracleon35th @ Feb 11, 2017 -> 02:54 AM) Jerry Reinsdorf saved the franchise after Bill Veeck and his son almost destroyed it. I presume you're kidding, right? Jerry Reinsdorf didn't save anything. He is the one who nearly destroyed a charter American League franchise with his blackmail threats to move the team to Florida in the 80s if the taxpayers of Illinois didn't build him a new stadium. Ever remember Bill Veeck indulging in anything remotely resembling such shameful behavior? No, because he WAS busy saving the franchise, saving it from moving to Seattle in 1976. Big difference, character-wise, at least publicly, between the two owners, and not in Reinsdorf's favor.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Feb 9, 2017 -> 02:48 PM) This is what Hahn recently said "When the time comes, we will be prepared to be aggressive, and free agency is used usually as a means to round out a championship-caliber roster. We know that's part of this. We are obviously not there at this time, but when the time comes, we are prepared to be aggressive. "Jerry has been on board in support of this from the start. He's as competitive as anybody. He's as impatient as anybody. He hopes ideally that we get this thing done as quickly as possible. " Taken from a whitesox.com article. So might not be 2018 but later.But like you I'll believe it when I see it. I'll go with 100 losses this year. Unfortunately I see some of the new pitchers up this year when Holland breaks down and others are ineffective and they will take their lumps, most likely Fulmer, Giolito and/or Lopez. Very hollow words. "When the time comes" applied to last offseason, and they failed to deliver, big time. And as for Reinsdorf and his supposed competitiveness, well, his record speaks for itself.

QUOTE (miracleon35th @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 05:40 PM) Yes, no Sale every fifth game and no Eaton. But..there are a few things that make the team better in some respects than it was last year. No Danks, No Matt Latos, No Matt Albers, a better option at SS to start the season than Jimmy Rollins, a better option at second base with Moncada, possibly a better clubhouse attitude without Sale and Eaton, and a much better Manager than Robin Ventura. A Closer other than Robertson might be another plus considering the key games he blew that really helped to turn the season around. It is too early to make any predictions though. We will have a better idea during Spring Training, don't you think? The Sox have question marks but I am not ready to predict last place out of 30 teams yet. You've identified all of the subtractions, but you haven't quite hit the mark on the additions to fill the holes left by the subtractions that back up your assertion that the team will be better than last year.

QUOTE (miracleon35th @ Feb 5, 2017 -> 01:59 PM) I disagree with all of that ^ Which parts in particular? The part where I say Reinsdorf is turning 81 this month? Well, that's a statement of fact - you can look it up yourself! The part where I say the rebuild will take 3-5 years? Seems to be the prevailing feeling amongst most about the duration of the endeavor, but I could be wrong. Could take shorter, could take longer, but 3-5 years is probably a good ballpark guess. Is it where I hoped Rick Hahn would continue his current efforts to get us from Point A to Point B? I think if he stays the current course he can and will get us to Point B. Do you dispute the notion we are at Point A right now? Seems like that fact goes hand-in-hand with the need for a rebuild in the first place. Or do you take exception with my lack of confidence with the ownership/management team that has failed miserably for over a decade now to get several teams that were at Point B to Point C, if and when they get the current team to Point B? Well, feel free to have faith in that part happening, but with the past eleven years still fresh in my memory, my preference is strongly in favor of a new group to come in and try a whole new approach in turning a team with a solid core into one capable of sustainable success. But that's just me.....

QUOTE (Two-Gun Pete @ Feb 5, 2017 -> 10:24 AM) Moreover, having an abject lack of depth in position player prospects created a market inefficiency that lead to desperate trades, signings, and a virtual lost decade+ since '05. Without some additional depth added NOW, we could be headed right back into that same place as then. I don't foresee a situation where any outcome of this rebuild could possibly result in something that could take us " right back into that same place as then". By "then" I presume you mean a scenario where we find the Sox with a core that looks very similar to the one Hahn is currently selling off, one that a series of "desperate trades" and "signings" orchestrated by Hahn, Williams and Reinsdorf in the past several years failed to turn into a championship-caliber ball club. The back end of this rebuild is somewhere between three and five years from now. Mr. Reinsdorf turns 81 years old this month, so it's not too difficult to align the timing of the end of the rebuild in the next 3-5 years with a change in ownership. That would be ideal - for Hahn to build a solid core in the next few years that could be handed off to a new ownership group, one with deeper pockets than the current group who would be looking to make an immediate impact by augmenting a solid young core by going outside and acquiring high-level talent available in the market at that time. That was the unfortunate problem during the past several years - the attempt to "catch lightning in a bottle" by augmentation through dumpster diving signings. To put it another way, and to use the analogy Mr. Reinsdorf used way back when he relieved Larry Himes of his duties, let's hope Hahn spends the next few years getting us from Point A to Point B, and then hand it all off to a new owner with a different strategic approach who can successfully get us to Point C, in a sustainable fashion that has managed to elude Mr. Reinsdorf for nearly four decades now.

QUOTE (Joshua Strong @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 06:55 PM) #TrustTheProcess Uh, noooooooo. Not ready to "trust" the Sox' brain trust just yet. Don't forget, the reason for the need for this rebuild is the abject failure of the team at both the Major and minor league level the past eight years for which the current front office is responsible. "Trust" is the last thing they've earned. Now "guarded optimism", based on the encouraging early results of the rebuild, that feels the more appropriate approach to take with this front office.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 11:21 PM) The Sox record stands. They won't spend big on FA pitchers from outside the organization. It's not the fault of Navarro, it's actually Dotson and Burns. They were in house players but really caused issues with significant injuries. the Buehrle and Danks deals were not the over 100 million dollar deals like Lester that the Sox would need to make if they picked up hitting instead of pitching. You mean the part about just 5 playoff appearances in the last 57 years? Yeah, let's just stick to the rebuild, shall we?

QUOTE (BrianAnderson @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 05:25 PM) Baseball in general, and the Sox have reached a pretty large low in the trading fronts ... or maybe that's just my take. I thought by now we'd hear a lot more not just on Q but all the other pieces. I know we don't have to trade them all at once and maybe even a Robertson or Frazier is better to wait on to hopefully build more value, but man is this slow. Leave it to the Sox to do a half assed tear down like they did a half ass run at the playoffs. So far the half booty tear down has garnered us the top prospect in all of baseball, and three of the top ten right handed pitching prospects. This effort has far exceeded the half tushy efforts they made to try and get to the playoffs the past few years.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 04:00 PM) I think Pedro is the best I ever saw. I loved Maddux for what he did and for whatever reason I just never think of Clemens as highly as others (even though his stats are absurd). Johnson was fun to watch, but Pedro was far more dominant at his peak, imo. I'd put Pedro / Kershaw as 1/2 on my list of pitchers I've watched. Smaller sample size, but 1984-1985 Doc Gooden was near-invincible those years. He was so young then, but at the time I thought he was on his way to becoming one of, if not, the best of all time. Shame what demons would eventually prevent him from reaching that plateau.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 02:39 PM) The guy has some massive flaws that haven't been corrected by one of the top pitching organizations in baseball. That should be a pretty big red flag. The stuff is there, but the guy isn't going to survive MLB with a 5+ walk rate, unless he has Nolan Ryan or Randy Johnson type of stuff. This is where my disconnect is. "Massive flaws" = nowhere near being included on a top 10 prospect list in all of baseball, at least to my way of thinking. I, of course, acknowledge that these various lists out there are not the end all/be all, that as some other posters have pointed out, each team operates under their own understanding of a player's capabilities based on what their scouts are telling them. I would just think someone with such a "big red flag" as you point out which hasn't been corrected by "one of the top pitching organizations in baseball" would not be on ANY of these lists if whatever issue(s) he has is/are as bad as you suggest.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 12:37 PM) Glasnow on his own is not a good enough prospect to headline a Quintana deal 5.2 BB/9 in the minors this season does not make anyone warm and fuzzy about his control developing. I am not saying he can't or will not improve, but right now he seems like the kind of pitcher that will rack up a bunch of k's, but also a bunch of 5+ walk games leading to maddening inconsistency Glasnow + Keller + Newman + one more is not the right package for the White Sox. We need at least one premium bat and one premium arm coming back to us in order to deal Quintana Something along the liens of: Meadows + Glasnow + Diaz + Comp Balance Pick for Quintana I keep seeing this observation made over and over again, but how is it that one of the top 3 pitching prospects in all of baseball as recognized by every legitimate source out there is somehow "not good enough" to headline this potential trade for Quintana? The guy IS a TOP 10 prospect in the game, and is actually rated ahead of the likes of the Torres' and Fraziers' of the world on almost every top prospect list out there. Yes, there is a scouting report here or there making certain comments about his stuff, but if it were that bad, he wouldn't continue to be at the top of all of these lists. I think perhaps our fan base's desire for prospects of the positional player variety may be muddling the true value of this guy as an elite prospect in the game today.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 09:34 AM) This is such a non-argument. Attendance is terrible now. We have literally nothing to lose by rebuilding. Houston had horrible attendance mid-rebuild in 2013, but they have shot up the list and added like 750,000 tickets by 2016. This is a rebuild. The future in a rebuild is younger and more exciting. That's it. As in, we are still only in the beginning stages of this rebuild, and we already have the #1 prospect in all of baseball, and three of the top RHP prospects. Cause for genuine excitement I should think across the fan base, with attendance being the least of concerns at this point.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 17, 2017 -> 11:39 AM) It's not that. Solid article actually. Basically just said Hahn wrecked the market with his outstanding deals. Never blamed him. "Wrecked" the market would mean Hahn set the bar so high and demanded so much that he couldn't get any deals done. But the fact that he was successful in completing two "outstanding" deals sounds to me that he established a market, vs. wrecking it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 11:20 AM) If Meadows and Bell are really off of the table, I'd much rather try to get a deal done with ATL. I continue to find this hard to believe. I think eventually they won't be off the table. I mean, how often do the Pittsburgh Pirates get to acquire a player of Quintana's caliber, a TOR starter who isn't making a gazillion dollars a year. When was the last time anyone remembers the Pirates provided this opportunity? I think this "off of the table" stuff at the moment just continues to be negotiating leaks out there, similar as has been mentioned here about how Moncada was untouchable until he wasn't. Not to mention, but if Gleyber Torres was "touchable" for three months of Aroldis Chapman, in what bizarre universe is Meadows and/or Bell untouchable for four years of Q?

QUOTE (shipps @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 10:12 AM) Rum Bunter ‏@rumbunter 17m17 minutes ago Rum Bunter Retweeted USABEvents White sox fans this guy is going no where This was in response to Austin Meadows being on the cover of Baseball America. Well, that's fine, but then Pirates fans should not hope to see Mr. Quintana with a green parrot sitting on his shoulder anytime soon.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 04:11 PM) I am not certain I am following your analysis of Cabrera. There were time Melky was the only one really hitting the ball. He is a line drive hitter not a homerun type of guy, but he still has some pop. Which is one of the many reasons the team is undergoing a full-on rebuild.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 05:59 PM) Not to mention there is an element of backbone to these type of deals. If other GMs know they can just wait you out, they won't ever give you their best deal because they know you will knuckle under. Sometimes you have to walk away to show that you will wait out the best offer. If ever there were a team positioned to do just that, it's the Sox right now.

I love this article from the New York Daily News, where Cashman was very candid with his thoughts about the negotiations with the Sox. In this article he states: - Sox are where the Yanks were last summer in terms of "pressing the reset button" - The Yankees set the bar high then in terms of expectations on trade returns for prized assets - Their results for the trades of Chapman and Miller ultimately led to the returns the Sox received for Sale/Eaton - He's willing to put high-end prospects on the table to get a deal done, but ironically, his trades from last summer and the Sox' current trades have established a new sticker price that the team who created this new market value in the first place is now not in a position to meet http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball...ticle-1.2941444

With the extra year of control, does that make the expectation on the return for Q equivalent to that of Sale, or in excess of it? Or does it not matter, and we should expect something slightly less? Can't quite gauge what this outcome ought to be, when all is said and done.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 12:30 PM) I agree that lack of pitching has been a major problem in this organization, but I can't help but feel we've loaded up on pitching already, to the point that if we're not getting position players back as the key ingredients there's no reason to make this deal. Glasnow + Keller + 2 other guys might be fair return on total talent, but we simply can't start this many pitchers. There is something tantalizing at looking at a rotation featuring Rodon, Giolito, Glasnow, Kopech, and Lopez/Fulmer.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 04:06 PM) Lmao at people in here taking shots at Vin Scully. Don't know what thread you're reading, but nobody's taken anything remotely resembling a "shot" at Mr. Scully throughout this discussion.

QUOTE (Deadpool @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 03:46 PM) But when you really think about it, Hawk is the worst part of any broadcast in baseball. He's the signature piece of a perennial loser. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-broadc...ntro-and-31-32/ And I have really thought about it, and what I've concluded is that there's not one announcer out there that's for everybody, not even the venerable Mr. Scully, and therefore everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the matter. You are not a fan of the Hawk for whatever reason you've drummed up in your head, and that's fine. You've made that clear. But there are those who thoroughly enjoy his style of broadcasting, and that's fine as well. That really is all there is to it. No one person's opinion prevails on this one.