Lip Man 1

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 21, 2016 -> 01:35 PM) Do you think JR sells to the other owners or do they all sell? Forbes estimates he owns 19% of the team. He wouldn't really benefit much personally from a sale. Interesting question. I've never heard of any other part owner of the Sox being interested. The only name I was ever told was the guy who owned the Memphis NBA franchise. He was from the Chicago area. Unfortunately he passed away a few years ago I think from cancer. And as I understand it JR does not need permission from the other part owners to sell. The decision is completely his. Mark

A poster at another Sox web site, compiled a list of positive and negative items in their opinion Hahn has done. I submit it here without comment for discussion purposes since that seems to be a running debate right now. "There are basically 4 things I think Hahn has done well, and 2 of them are contract based. 1.) Sale's contract 2.) Quintana's contract 3.) Sign Abreu 4.) Trade for Eaton The rest of his timeline as GM is a mess. 1.) Chose Flowers over Pierzynski 2.) Jeff Keppinger for $12 million 3.) Traded Matt Thornton (who was still productive last year and has played in the postseason) for no MLB talent. 4.) Traded Jake Peavy (who went on to contribute for 2 World Series champs) into Avisail Garcia 5.) Traded Alex Rios (who went on to contribute for a World Series champ) into Leury Garcia. 6.) Extended Robin Ventura 7.) Paul Konerko's last 2 years for $16 million 8.) Addison Reed for Matt Davidson 9.) Rushed Rodon to MLB 10.) Traded Dunn, Beckham, and De Aza (2 of the 3 having an impact on postseason games) for no MLB talent 11.) Adam LaRoche for $25 million 12.) Jeff Samardzija for Marcus Semien, Josh Phegley, and $10 million 13.) Melky Cabrera for $42 million 14.) David Robertson for $46 million 15.) Todd Frazier for Trayce Thompson, Micah Johnson, and $16.5 million 16.) Mat Latos 17.) Jimmy Rollins 18.) Waiting at least 2 years too long before releasing John Danks 19.) James Shields for Erik Johnson and $27 million 20.) Has refused to fire the coaching staff. 21.) Spent five million on utility infielders Beckham and Bonifacio who did nothing." Feel free to comment on what you think. I agree with some of the items, disagree with some others. Mark

That's about the last thing this battered bullpen needs. Reminds me of August 2010, when Sox bullpen guys were dropping like flies, they had no one to replace them and they fell out of the race after leading the division if I recall right on August 1. Mark

South: Agree. It's not just one area a basic fix or a simple fix. Like I said the Sox are between a rock and a hard place with no easy solutions and no easy answers. Mark

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 19, 2016 -> 11:48 AM) That is a well reasoned post. I disagree withat a few points. The baseball that has been played there is some of the best in the world. Far above college, MiLB, independent league, etc. With the team winning close to 50% of the time. If the Sox do not deserve fan support than baseball in America doesn't deserve any support. The league should drop half the teams at least. Tex: It sounds to me and I may be wrong about this, that part of the way you look at the sport is the sport itself. By that I mean you look at taking pleasure out of watching (on paper) the best players in the world play the game and enjoy the game for the game's sake. Nothing wrong with that, and I won't belittle that viewpoint. I disagree with it, as Bobby Knight once said, "if winning or losing doesn't matter why the hell do they keep score..." White Sox fans I think used to at least have confidence in the fact that the team probably was going to have a winning season at least and be very competitive. Based on the last nine plus seasons I don't think they can even believe that anymore. Mark

QUOTE (SouthSideSale @ Jun 19, 2016 -> 02:32 PM) I'm sure Robin is gone now. Unfortunately I'm not convinced he's going anywhere. Robertson hasn't been the same pitcher by the way since Robin let him get his brains beat in, in K.C. You wonder if mentally that's simply fried him. Mark

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 19, 2016 -> 07:25 AM) Mark, you are an intelligent guy, please follow my point here and see what you think. You bring up a great point and one that perpetually follows Sox baseball. While your point is that simple, it is also more complex. Let's look at restaurants. Is your favorite restaurant a Michelin three star rated place? There are thirteen in all of the United States, more than World Series winning baseball teams, about the same as playoff teams in baseball. By baseball standards all of the other restaurants are not worthy of visiting because they are not winning. Their product is not very good compared to these thirteen. There are two Michelin three star restaurants in Chicago. If you go to any other restaurant you are supporting mediocrity or worst. So what can a restaurant do to earn your business that isn't winning? Provide a great atmosphere, great service, be a good fit for your entertainment dollar. Family friendly if you need that. They need to provide a quality experience for the time and money you invest. It would then follow that the Sox need to make certain they have set the table for a quality experience. They know that both teams will play some of the highest level baseball on the planet. (After all it is the MLB, name a better league anywhere). The home team may not win. But if your favorite actor is in a movie, do you care if the movie wins an Academy award of not? For the out of town Sox fans here, it seems like everyone gets to a game when they are in town, no matter how the team is doing. I'm catching a Sunday game against Detroit. Why? Because of the experience. Seeing the stadium and everything that surrounds a MLB baseball game. If fans judge the quality of the experience strictly on the outcome, they will eventually always be unhappy and most years will never attend a game. Of course we are talking about the casual fan, not the diehards here who will generally buy tickets. So no, sports teams don't function exactly like a restaurant, dry cleaners, etc. All of those other examples can earn your loyalty without being one of the top four or five in world. Sports teams also need to beat every other competitor on top of doing everything else great. Tex: First off thank you for the compliment. An interesting post and your points are logical and have some validity to them. I guess it depends on your definition of "winning" though. In my case, speaking just for me only, I've always considered the season a "success" if the Sox simply win more games than they lost. At least (and this is the bare minimum) at the end of the year they can look the fans in the eye and say, "we won more than we lost." I don't think and never have thought that winning the World Series is the only definition of "success." So like in your post, to me there are ways the Sox can achieve success without being the ultimate "Michelin-type" winner. That is to at least win more games than they lose and to make an EXPANDED (easier to achieve) goal of post season play more than once every seven to eight years. At this point the Sox have been unable to do either of these what I consider modest benchmarks. They haven't had a winning season since 2012, they haven't had consecutive winning seasons since 2003-2006 and they haven't made the playoffs since 2008 (Only Seattle, Miami and San Diego have gone longer...) The fact that these benchmarks aren't being met and again I think they are modest for a major market team, I can understand why they lost attendance from the previous season in eight of the previous nine years and why a major shakeup is needed. If not, I fear things are only going to get worse. Enjoyed your reasonable and thoughtful post though! Mark

They should but they won't. Probably to stubborn to admit it. Mark

To me it's a simple concept and really I'm amazed some folks just don't get it. The Sox are no different from a restaurant or the hardware store or the local cleaners. They are ALL businesses first and foremost. If they put out a poor product, customers will not do business with them. They are under absolutely no obligation to do so. Would you keep going back to that restaurant if they keep getting your order wrong for example and the food is bad? Now add in a taxpayer funded ballpark, perhaps the biggest "sweetheart lease" in baseball and millions of dollars in income and to me, customers who support bad baseball (or a bad steak or a bad hammer or a dirty shirt) well...they are the ones who I think should be rethinking the situation. To each his own I guess. Mark

I'm of two minds right now regarding Shields and this entire situation. Part of me still holds out some slim hope that by firing Ventura, making some moves maybe they still have a chance. But part of me also hopes he gets bombed every time out. Maybe total embarrassment (and owing 27 million) are the only things that would finally get it through JR's head that this entire front office needs to go. The problem with that strategy is though that even that might not move an 80 year old owner off the dime. Or maybe Shields will save everyone and pull a LaRoche and retire? Really tough to be a Sox fan right now or for the last decade. Mark

All I can say is WOW. Think Rick is sweating a little bit right now given that he admitted even JR had some question about getting Shields? Mark

What's the Plan?"... Good question...maybe we need to ask Kenny since it was about a year ago he told the media 2015 was the first year of the three year plan / window. He hasn't said much since then to the best of my knowledge. My guess is more of the same until new ownership...basically "contending while rebuilding" which basically hasn't worked for this franchise and as others have posted "half measures" without a real commitment to one area or philosophy. Mark

The only thing I can think of is the players know what's going on with him and they start pressing to try to get him some runs...which only seems to make things worse. Mark

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 17, 2016 -> 10:40 AM) Actually you are wrong. Majority shareholder is 50% +1. Seems to me you are splitting hairs from a legal perspective. The Sox have so many investors no one has 50% +1. The reality is though he has the most ownership shares, he has the largest percentage AND he has the power to control the day to day operations in his contract. From a practical standpoint he is the "majority". 50% + 1 or not. Mark

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jun 17, 2016 -> 08:55 AM) He's still talking about being a seller at the trade deadline, not about selling the team. It doesn't matter either way because he's not the majority owner. He's just the face of the ownership group. Actually if you are talking about JR he IS the majority owner. The Sox have so many investors that his share (speculated at up to 33%) puts him in the drivers seat. AND this is more important in his contract he is allowed to run the day to day operations of the franchise without interference from the other board members. Basically he has total complete control in all aspects. I've heard that some other members of the board of directors do want to sell, in fact last year (I think) there was a long detailed story in the Tribune talking about the future of the franchise and quoted sources as confirming this. But...those people are powerless to force anything on JR because of his contract. JR is an exceptionally smart and astute business man. Mark

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jun 16, 2016 -> 04:09 PM) Did you break your keyboard with this post? Not sure I understand the comment. Sounded reasonable and brought up valid points in my opinion. Mark

You bring up some very good points. The Sox the past decade always seem to be between "the rock and a hard place..." with no clear answers, no easy solutions. They aren't willing to "blow it up" and start over yet they aren't willing to commit the monstrous money needed to get the top of the line free agents when they become available (which granted isn't often). They go "dumpster diving" a lot (with the usual results) and still don't have a quality minor league feeder system that can be used for reinforcements or to trade for established quality vets who aren't on the downside of 30. Wish I had the answer but that's why the front office folks get paid what they do...to solve the problem. Mark

A win is a win. Nice showing by Anderson This is weird, don't know if the Sox ever pulled this before: Went 23-10 in their first 33 games. Went 10-23 in the last 33 games. Mark

If you think about it the past two series (five games) are a textbook, perfect example of one of the main issues that has been a plague for this organization for years...inconsistency. Against Kansas City the pitching is very good...and the hitting is non-existent. Against Detroit they are scoring runs in bunches, hitting the hell out of the ball...and the pitching is brutal. The only thing consistent about this organization on the field is there inconsistency. ----- Moving on, I see where Frazier was benched. Hitting .210, visibly showing frustration at the plate Monday. To his credit he is still playing a very good defense at third base but if his hitting doesn't get better the comparisons to Adam Dunn are going to start (if they haven't already). "Home Run or nothing..." We'll see if Sale can at least take the series Wednesday. Mark

Little note for tonight: Sox are now 3-0 in games Ventura's been kicked out of. Mark

Deja vu all over again for 6-13: June 13, 1978 - It was one of the greatest comebacks by any team in franchise history. After trailing Cleveland 9-0 going into the bottom of the third inning, the Sox wound up winning the game 10-9! They scored six runs in the third, four runs in the fourth inning and hung on to win. They scored 10 runs without benefit of a home run. Wayne Nordhagen led the way with three RBI’s. Rich Hinton went over six innings in relief allowing only a run on five hits to get the win. Give them all the credit in the world. Season went south after blowing a huge lead in Texas maybe the season will head north after this one tonight. And can James Shields possibly pitch any worse than right now? Tonight may have saved Robin's job...don't know if that's a good thing or not. Mark

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 13, 2016 -> 12:44 PM) Yet Larry Himes was able to get it done under the same ownership, and you threw a "well he had top 10 picks" in there. So did Roland and he failed miserably. Don't downplay Larry Himes, and then come up with excuses for Roland. One difference between the Mike Trout one was a lot more teams passed on Trout. Bonds was the next pick after Brown. Don't tell me you wouldn't be holding that against KW ever. So who is downplaying Himes? I'm not. All I said was I thought Roland was the best GM under JR especially given the circumstances. I've tried very hard to find out more info and get to the root of the dislike between the two men to little avail. All I have to work with are statements on the record by JR on the Chet Coppock show and info from jeff Torborg. He did a nice job building the farm with four consecutive top 10 picks. I'd certainly hope most GM could have a good success rate with that. Don't try to make something out of nothing please. Mark

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 13, 2016 -> 12:12 PM) Roland got the axe because the minor league system was embarrassing. The guys they were calling up in 1985 were not major leaguers in any way. Roland's a nice guy, but if you use the same criteria on him you use on everyone else, his being fired was deserved. Kurt Brown over Barry Bonds with the 5th overall pick in the 1985 draft? Oops. Some of Roland's top 10 picks, Baines, nice, Daryl Boston at 7, Cecil Espy at 8, Steve Trout at 8, Steve Bueschele a decent player at 9, but didn't sign. Why would you draft a HS player at 9 who isn't going to sign? I do not want to hijack this thread but I simply can't let this pass. It's really hard for any GM to build a good minor league system when the operating 'philosophy' runs counter to that. Eddie Einhorn expressed that philosophy early on in the new ownerships tenure: (Paraphrasing) 'The way to win in baseball is with trades and free agent signings.' Many claim that philosophy still exists today. And there's a reason why JR fought for so many years to get a slot system in the draft. He's also publicly stated he does not like to pay unproven, untested players top dollar. From a business sense I understand that and would probably agree with it...but baseball wasn't run that way for better or worse. Instead of adapting, he continued to swim upstream against it. Which as owner was his right. But the Sox paid the price for it. If the Brown / Bonds situation is brought up, how about the Mike Trout one? The draft is not an exact science. every GM today, every GM in the past has blown picks. When ownership isn't interested in a solid minor league system, when ownership won't allocate resources to it (for example Mark Gonzales when he was the Sox beat writer posted a story stating that in terms of money spent on minor league talent the Sox were dead last in major league baseball for a five year period. I think it was something like 2007-2011) it's hard for any GM to work miracles. And that's not even counting the caliber of the minor league coaches, managers and instructors. Mark

QUOTE (FT35 @ Jun 13, 2016 -> 11:22 AM) The argument about the players not getting it done is valid when thinking about whether Robin is to blame. They need to play better...got it. But what IS on Robin's plate is playing a large part in establishing a winning culture within the organization--developing the mindset of the team, the mental approach to the daily grind, the player's psyche, creating a culture of winning. Look at the organizations that have had that no matter what players are on the field...St. Louis, San Francisco, Texas, usually the Yankees and Red Sox--minus the occasional outliner year. These franchises have winning cultures. The players change, but the results usually produce a winning season. The White Sox have had that...they were one of the top win% teams in the 90's and have had many solid years since, but the winning culture has dissolved into a survival culture--a "what else could go wrong" culture. Whether Robin is solely responsible for taking them there is debatable...whether he's a great baseball guy is not the question...I'm sure he is--we all loved him when he played here...but the fact is, the culture has dissolved into what it is under his leadership and it needs to change. No matter how much talent is put around him, he's not able to tap into players' full potential and ability. Out of the 4 years he's been here...there have only been short periods of time where everyone was pulling on the same end of the rope. The result was the ability to win. However, MOST of the time, we see too much of the hitting being on one day and off another...usually negatively corresponding with the days the pitching is on or off...it's all the evidence of a group of players who are responding as individuals and not as a cohesive unit--TEAM. When this happens in all other sports, the manager is the first to be held accountable--especially after a 4 year sample size of the same thing and a fan base who is beyond frustrated with it all. This part I agree with completely. Well thought out post. Mark

QUOTE (GhostofDickeyKerr @ Jun 12, 2016 -> 10:35 PM) Funny, since Himes was the best GM he ever had and the only one who gave a deuce about developing the minor league system. In my opinion Roland was the best GM JR ever had but your point about the minor league system is valid. Of course having four top picks in a row didn't hurt. And by top picks I mean in the top 10. Mark