Thad Bosley

QUOTE (PolishPrince34 @ Nov 3, 2016 -> 07:24 AM) 100% in agreement. The main problem is Jerry Reinsdorf. Things will not change until we have new ownership. Last night, unfortunately for Mr. Reinsdorf, he has now enshrined in his legacy as White Sox owner the assumption of the role of presiding over the "losingest" team in all of baseball. That mantle no longer belongs to the Chicago Cubs. That baton unfortunately was handed over to the Chicago White Sox the moment Rizzo caught that ball to end the game last night. In Reinsdorf's defense, he inherited a ball club that had only four playoff appearances in the club's 80 year history prior to his arrival as owner. But with only 5 playoff appearances in his 36 years as owner, he has presided over continued failure, so much so that the Cubs, despite their miserable history, have managed to accomplish enough in the past decade to surpass the Sox in terms of success.

QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Nov 2, 2016 -> 01:45 PM) The way I see it, the Cubs are in year 2 of their 5 year title contending window. They will be knocking on the door every year until these kids become FA's and begin asking for Dodger/Yankee/Red Sox money. The Indians are also in the beginning stages of their competitive window. With that said, the White Sox need to rebuild and trade off their assets. The target date should be 2019 or 2020 to be ready to compete. The White Sox arrival would ideally mean the departure of this Cubs era of sustained success. (2015-2020). The time is now to trade off assets like Sale and Quintana to obtain near MLB ready prospects. I was looking at the farm system depth today and I am starting to realize that we are getting some decent depth down there. (FINALLY!) This may or may not be the thread to talk about this but with the likes of Spencer Adams and Alec Hanson being ready in the near future. Rodon ready to move up the rotation, Shields here to eat up innings (and thats about it) and Fulmer ready to learn as a starter at the MLB ready, the time is now to take advantage of the market. Sell high on Sale and Q and lets continue to beef up the farm. Let's reestablish a new core and let's do this the right way. No more re-tooling. Let's rebuild. With all of the assets-- this rebuild can be accelerated to a point where they can be ready by 2019 in my opinion. The free agent market for starting pitching is pretty weak. The market for Sale and Q this winter will be HUGE! I have never seen KW or Hahn sell high on any of the White Sox veterans. I really hope they do so now. Trade these guys: Sale, Q, Abreu, Melky, Frazier and Robertson. This should reshape the entire roster to a point where we'll have plenty to be excited about moving forward. A feeling us White Sox fans haven't had in a LONG time. The hope of a real success future. Great post, Great Scott, as always!

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Nov 1, 2016 -> 11:28 PM) I would agree with your thought process if I didn't have 35 years history contradicting it. The Sox have never felt they are in competition with the Cubs, have stated it publicly many time. JR (and for right or wrong you have to admire the strength of his convictions) has never been influenced by the Cubs, Sox fans, the media, agents...never has and never will be. Significant and needed change will come eventually, it has to since time marches on and we are all human. Mark No, of course not. Why would you EVER be influenced by the key stakeholders - your paying customers!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 1, 2016 -> 12:05 PM) No, you always piping in when someone else responded to my posts. You did nothing before then, then tried the pile on a SS2k5 signature move. But let's get this back on track. This is just a horrible thing for the Sox to do to their fans. Now everyone can be happy. Hey Dick, I could throw a Jerry Reinsdorf rant in here and have the heat turned on me for a bit to give you a breather if you want. Just let me know. I'm here for you!!

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 10:28 PM) What do you expect from an ownership team that has deteriorated this franchise into a small market ball club, with all of their awful decisions over their tenure. More of the same, unfortunately.

QUOTE (captain54 @ Oct 28, 2016 -> 12:53 AM) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 01:35 PM) * Realistically, less than half of that 116 years is even relevant anymore. If you want to make an honest assessment of the situation, you probably narrow your search and should consider the people who are actually alive today. That means you have an entire generation of people who are 30 and younger who have never seen the White Sox as the #1 team in this town. So while it looks imposing to quote the 1920's, 30's and 40's and even the 50's, as somehow important to today, it isn't. You have to be pushing the mid 60's years old to even remember a game played in the 1950's. Quoting the 1920's as relevant here is like saying that the Republicans voted for the repeal of slavery, as if it is relevant to 2016. It isn't. Chicago is a Cubs town, and pretty solidly has been since the 1950's and early 1960's. Thad, you might need to adjust your statement, to..."the fan base that witnessed 4 trips to the post season in 31 yrs" ..because nothing pre-1985 matters in relation to looking back at how the Cub vs Sox dynamic actually works In the future please disregard any reference to a period of two decades of winning baseball in the last half of the 20th century on the South Side, and how it lead to the Cubs being an afterthought in this town Also disregard 80% of the films and TV shows produced in the last century. Not important. Most people alive today don't care goes for music too. Beatles, Stones, Elvis, David Bowie, Pink Floyd, The Who, Zeppelin, Muddy Waters, Aretha Franklin, Marvin Gaye, James Brown. Most people alive today weren't around when these artists were in their heyday And while you're at it, disregard the majority of events, (and whether any lessons can be learned from them) centered around WWII, the Holocaust, Nuclear War, Space Exploration, Medical Advances, Civil Rights, Womens Rights, the environment, the judicial system, energy, and the economy, that occurred pre-1980, because most people that are alive today weren't around then... Do you see how that works? No can do, Captain! You can't restrict observations around here to just the Jerry Reinsdorf era. That's what's known in these parts as "shtick". Can't go there!!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 27, 2016 -> 09:11 AM) Well for one fan base in this town... Yes, the fan base that has only witnessed 9 trips to the postseason in 116 years of its existence. That fan base.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Oct 27, 2016 -> 12:12 PM) You can't know that for sure. I mean, sure, that's true as long as Reinsdorf is alive, but he's old and once he dies, maybe the current ownership group decides to sell and we get an owner like the one we should've had in the 80s, Eddie DeBartolo, who went on to own the 49ers in the 80s when his bid to own the Sox was shut down by MLB. You may have heard a thing or two about the 49ers of the 80s and 90s, and the catalyst for all of it was a man who really wanted to own the White Sox instead. Imagining how different things would be with that one small change makes me angry at times, this may very well be a Sox town right now had MLB allowed him to buy the team. That said, it all comes down to winning. Even if you buy into the notion that people are predisposed to becoming Cubs fans in Chicago, if the White Sox are wildly successful for a sustained period while the Cubs have just about any 10+ year performance out of their last 50 or so years of history, that will change. The ultimate problem is that JR has, for the most part, not offered a superior alternative, so people just pick who their parents or grandparents picked. Outstanding post.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 02:06 PM) The Sox have had their fair share of people dressing up as green and blue seats over the years. It's mind boggling, isn't it, how the constant lack of winning results in the constant empty seats in the ballpark.

QUOTE (Hatchetman @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 12:42 PM) That's exactly what I'm worried about! Haha! I said places we've "never been". We've been to all of the bad places (see Allyn ownership years, mid-to-late 80s, past four years, etc). I'm talking the opposite. Time for our team and fan base to enjoy some sustainable winning for once. I mean, is there some law out there that sez the White Sox can never have a dynasty of some sort! Geez!! Yeah, definitely hoping for much bigger and better things from the next owner. In the meantime, if Reinsdorf wants to peel off a nice run in the sunset of his time as owner, I certainly wouldn't mind. Just not counting on that happening, unfortunately.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 08:01 AM) This is just nonsense. Up until the '90s when the Cubs started taking over it was a pretty even split. From 1901 to 1989 the Cubs won the attendance battle 46 times, the Sox won it 43 times. Total Cubs draw: 82,475,823 for an average of 926,694 per season. Total Sox draw: 75,212,098 for an average of 845,079 per season. A difference of roughly a whopping 1000 people per game. The Sox dominated them until the '20s. The '20s were pretty split. The Cubs took over through the '30s and '40s. Then the Sox dominated them through the '50s and '60s. Cubs got em in the '70s and the '80s were pretty much split. The Cubs have lost 100+ games three times in their history. The Sox outdrew them in two of those seasons. The notion that the city has been and always will be a Cubs town is just blatantly false. If the Sox start winning consistently the fans will come out. Seems like such an easy solution, but sadly, a very elusive one for this charter American League team franchise. Since the team came into being in 1901, it has only made it to the postseason a stunningly low number of nine times. Just nine times! It's almost unbelievable to think any team could be around that long and only make it to the playoffs so few times. That's why any discussion about the culture of the White Sox fan base begins and ends here - the lack of anything even remotely resembling "winning consistently". The team has just not done it at any time in its 116 year history. This is why there is a golden opportunity for the next owner of the Sox, whomever he or she turns out to be, to take the team and its beleaguered fan base to places its never been. Change the White Sox culture from one of losing to one of winning will be a first for this franchise. Comiskey, Veeck, Allyn, and of course Mr. Reinsdorf, none of them made it happen when it was their turn to do so. Now let's hope that the next owner is truly the knight in shining armor who comes in and rescues this team from its century-old malaise and once and for all, establishes it as a sustainable force to be reckoned with in the American League.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Oct 24, 2016 -> 10:29 AM) I remember thinking Stir the Drink was gonna be the thing we latched onto in 2015. Walk around the Loop, see somebody in a Sox hat, stir the drink, you've both bonded over your fun contending team. That's how I imagined it would go. Yes, I'm a dork. As with everything else, it comes down to winning. If the team is bad, all the meme stuff that would normally be fun just makes you grumpy. When the team gets consistently good again, that type of thing will come back. What he said!

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Oct 21, 2016 -> 01:49 PM) The L.A. Clippers were a joke for their entire existence until a few years ago. Fans will pay attention to a winning team, including ceasing to pay attention to one of the all-time great franchises (Lakers). They absolutely will. The Sox just have a putrid record in providing a winning team to their fans. THAT is the problem!

QUOTE (Elgin Slim @ Oct 20, 2016 -> 10:46 PM) This is truth. If anyone thinks the Sox aren't moving when their lease is up, they're crazy. As long as there is a viable destination for them to go to, they're as good as gone. If you extrapolate twitter followers, there are roughly 7 cubs fans for every 2 Sox fans CURRENTLY. To think that ratio won't shrink to 8 or 9 to 1 with a Cubs WS win is insanely naive. Chicago is well on its way to becoming a one team town in baseball. IMO it isn't a matter of if, but when. The Cubs have taken over this city over the last 35 years or so, the only way for the Sox to have a chance is if the Cubs lose games 6 and 7, Lester's arm falls off in ST 2017 and Bryant and Rizzo completely suck going forward for some odd reason, all of which are unlikely to happen. The combination of more trips to the postseason, including doing so in consecutive years, coupled with two ownership groups that have managed to avoid self-inflicted, fan-unfriendly decisions over this period of time, is the reason for this.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Oct 20, 2016 -> 02:10 PM) I've been definitely thinking the same. If you look at who made the playoffs this year, who is a shoe in to make it again next year? Red Sox? Probably, deep system and tons of talent under control Indians? They'll be tough with Carrasco, Brantley, Salazar, and Gomes back Rangers? Would be lucky to be a .500 team next year, window is closing Blue Jays? Bautista and Encarnacion are FAs, they'll take a step back Orioles? Their window is almost shut Houston will probably be pretty good next year, Detroit is cutting money, Royals are cutting money and probably trading Davis, Mariners do anything for you? Angels suck... Who says the Sox couldn't be a playoff team with a few smart moves? There's the rub!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 19, 2016 -> 02:19 PM) If a Sale or Q trade worked out the same way the Miggy trade worked out for the Marlins, there would be a lot of unhappiness. [insert Debbie Downer "WAH! WAH!" sound effect]

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Oct 18, 2016 -> 09:52 AM) Speaking of non-relevance to the discussion....

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 18, 2016 -> 09:29 AM) No, but the argument we complained plenty about him before, we just didn't mention him is you would have to agree laughable. 5 years of apparent failure, never a mention. A new hire, 0 days on the job, a total failure, White Sox loyalty hire. There is no realistic hire for this job that wouldn't have been looked at negatively. I wonder if the White Sox ever hired Terry Francona as a manager how the loyalty police would get around that one. 5 years in the Sox system, only left to join Buddy Bell's staff in Detroit. The title of this thread is "Chris Getz to take over player development", not "Hey, how do you y'all think Nick Capra has done the past five years?". Why can't people simply share their opinions on Getz and his qualifications for this position without also having to conduct a post mortem on Capra? Like I said yesterday, if you want a discussion on how he did in the role, start up a thread on that. Meanwhile, it's really not germane to this discussion.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 18, 2016 -> 08:54 AM) The point is it's complaining about something no one ever considered complaining about before. Right up your alley. No one knows anything about Chris Getz's ability to perform the job, so it is assumed, just like with whoever they hired, that he obviously is unqualified and JR just went into his little black book and made a call to hire him. He is not an inside hire. LOL - you are funny. Colonel Complaint Officer Dick Allen, who spends 90% of his time around here whining and complaining about others when he feels they are whining and complaining about things, is now whining and complaining that nobody has whined or complained about Nick Capra in the past. Unbelievable! There's just no winning with this guy!!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 18, 2016 -> 08:05 AM) It's not a non point. EVERYONE thought Nick Capra was so insignificant in the grand scheme of things, he was never brought up on this board. Only when he had a quote about a player. Now it is one of the most imperative positions with the franchise turned over to Chris Getz who although he knows more than anyone hear, apparently doesn't know crap because he was in the White Sox system a couple of years ago, and this move will keep the team from winning for a long while. Its a mid level position at best. 1. People can have a point of view on the Getz hiring without every having one on Nick Capra. 2. While Getz may know more than anyone here, that's not the point. The point people not interested in just arguing for the sake of arguing are trying to make is does he know more than other potentially available people out there who might have more experience than him? Or was this another move like so many in the past has been made where his simple association with the Sox in the past was the primary qualification the team was looking for. See Robin Ventura.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 17, 2016 -> 02:35 PM) People can complain about Getz all they want. I even stated earlier his experience is light, but...do we even know his specific job duties? It's just odd that this position is now so important The guy that held it previously was never really questioned, wasn't ripped, wasn't really complained about moving into a job on the major league staff. If the development has been bad, and this role so crucial, it's amazing he has received zero play. All I was mentioning is now Getz get scrutinized more in one day, before he even starts, than this guy did in 5 years of apparent failure. Why don't you just start a post mortem thread titled "How did Nick Capra do as Director of Player Development of the White Sox"? That way you can gather all of the assessment of his time in that role that you claim has been missing at Soxtalk all of these years, and then this thread can go back to fans reacting to the hiring of Getz for the role. Just a thought!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 17, 2016 -> 10:38 AM) Since you are complaining, why don't you list some available candidates that would have been better hires, and tell us more about Chris Getz, and why he lacks the skills to be a good developmental guy. That fact is, you don't know. The ONLY reason you complain is because Getz was drafted and played for the White Sox. You are trolling now, Allen. Trolling in its purest form. I have not complained about anything. I've offered up two observations on this hire - whether or not Getz was the best option available out there, particularly given his limited experience in the player development space. The other is that the White Sox hiring of someone should not be solely because of their prior association with the team, a la Mr. Ventura, nor should someone be precluded from being hired, which is where much of the conversation in this thread seems to be trending. But you are in such a damn hurry to start with your trolling nonsense you didn't even bother to actually read what I wrote. Do us both a favor. Avail yourself of the ignore option when it comes to my posts.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 17, 2016 -> 09:52 AM) It's from people who think any tie to the White Sox means they can't do what they will be hired to do, although many want Dave Martinez to manage. He played in more games for the White Sox than Chris Getz. People would rather have an idiot with no White Sox ties, than a bright guy like Getz just because he played about 120 games for the team. It's ridiculous. For all intents and purposes, Chris Getz is an outside hire. All of his management training has come from the Royals. This loyalty shtick is getting old. Why does no one mention Bobby Thigpen, someone I am sure JR feels more loyalty to than Chris Getz, is out of a job? The skepticism is misplaced. In this case, any evaluation of this hire should based on looking at Getz' qualifications for the job, including looking at his years of experience vs. other potential candidates out there, vs. his history with the White Sox. That's the pendulum swinging the other way. White Sox hirings should not be based solely on having a history with the organization, nor should they be prohibited as a result, either.

QUOTE (Joshua Strong @ Oct 17, 2016 -> 09:11 AM) They got someone from the outside that has experience, yes it's only 2 years but what's wrong with giving someone their shot? It's already been said here that people in the game speak highly of him. The skepticism of this hiring is to be expected, as we as Sox fans are fresh off of the failed Robin Ventura experiment, where his hiring was done solely based on name and association with the organization. Getz may be an up and coming talent in the player development space, but regardless, you just have to wonder if he was the best available talent out there to take on this very important role within this particular organization, one where certain aspects of player development (position players) has been sorely lacking in recent years.

I wonder which teams the Sox beat out for the services of Getz for a position of similar significance.