Tony

It’s your classic “lower the bar as far as you can so when you slightly raise it at the lowest point possible, we can call it progress!”

You got one of those too? 😂

Just the absolute worst organization. They always find new, creative ways to say “f*** you” to their most loyal followers

But that's not what you said. "Days being numbered" does not in anyway imply he's got another 3-4 years left on the job. Those are two very different things. And with Jerry keeping control until at least 2029, I don't think Getz is looking to put his house on the market quite yet.

What?? What evidence is there to tell you Jerry would have ANY interest in removing Chris Getz from his current role??

This is objectively false, so I'm starting to understand why we don't see eye to eye on this...you're working with information that just isn't accurate. The A's made the playoffs in 2012, 2013, 2014. Three consecutive trips to the playoffs, something the White Sox have never done in their franchise history. In 2012, the A's went 94-68. They drew 1.6 million fans. The same year, the White Sox went 85-77, missed the playoffs, and drew 1.9 million fans. In 2018, the A's went 97-65. They drew 1.5 million fans. The same year, the White Sox went 62-100, missed the playoffs, and drew 1.6 million fans. In 2019, after going 97-65 the year before, the A's posted the EXACT same record, and once again went to the playoffs. They drew 97,118 more fans in 2019 than in 2018. In 2005, the White Sox drew 2,342,833 fans in their World Series year. In 2006, they saw an increase of 614,581 fans. In the last 10 years, Oakland has never been higher than 10th out of 15 teams in the AL in attendance. The White Sox were 5th in the AL in attendance in 2021, and wouldn't you know it...they made the playoffs.

The Sox drew 2.9 million fans in 2006, good for 3rd in the AL that year. In 2007, they drew 2.6, good for 5th in the AL that year. They were also 5th in 2008, 6th in 2009. In 1991, they were 2nd in the AL in attendance, in 1992 they were 3rd, and the same spot in 1993. Sox fans have shown historically that if you put a good product on the field, people will pay money to see them play. Seems fair. Ownership has not held up their side of the agreement.

You sound like an absolute blast at parties.

Do you really want to get into debate about successes and failures when it comes to Reinsdorf owned teams? Because based on the angle you're taking, that's an argument you're going to lose. Additionally, as owner of a professional sports team (two, actually), everything falls under your watch. He's employing the people in making the draft picks, executing the trades, engaging in player development. If it's not working (which is clearly hasn't with both franchises) then changes are needed until they are consistently competitive with the rest of the league. His teams have failed to do that at an alarmingly high rate. And even using your premise, that Jerry isn't "personally responsible" for day to day roster decisions, the people he hired are. Why should we think at 89 years old, his hiring practices and what he looks for in GM's is suddenly going to change?

I mean, at this point, that's on you, not the Sox.

This is, once again, a Reinsdorf problem. When Jerry introduced Chris Getz to the media on August 31st, 2023, Reinsdorf said: "The conclusion I came to is what we owe our fans, and ourselves, is to not waste any time, we want to get better as fast as we possibly can. And if I had gone outside the organization, it would have taken at least a year to get familiar with everyone in the organization, and that would mean this (upcoming) year would not be a year of great progress." Additionally, there was this: Even if Getz wanted to trade Robert, I don't know if he would have been "allowed" to do it.

And there is just far too much history and data to tell us it's just isolated to one sport/one team. This is a deep rooted, multi-generational belief that player development is not something you invest in, doing the bare minimum can still find you "success" when it comes to owning a professional sports franchise. It's why I personally feel like all the hand ringing, back and forth conversation about the White Sox is all for nothing. They can say all the right things, draft all the players they want...nothing will ultimately change until the current owners are removed from the equation. And 89 year old doesn't suddenly change their beliefs overnight. Jerry isn't going to wake up one morning and say "Everything I've been doing has been wrong, we're changing course." We're all hostages aboard the S.S. Reinsdorf.

https://awfulannouncing.com/nfl/peter-king-predicts-end-draft-in-our-lifetime.html maybe it wasn’t that crazy after all?

You know they have at least two first round picks until 2028? What Presti has done in OKC has been remarkable.

Season 2 of Andor was pretty great. Started slow, just like Season 1, but great content.

So now they just broke everyone’s brain lol

No one is disagreeing that adding young pieces to an organization is a bad thing. Erick Fedde had a 4.6 WAR in 121 innings with the White Sox. He was absolutely a valuable commodity in the marketplace. Again, there has been NO ONE WORSE in the major leagues this season than Andrew Vaughn. In 193 PA's this season, he has put up a -1.7 WAR. Last season, Andrew Vaughn had 619 PA's. So let's just do some easy math. 193 x 3 gives us 579. Fair estimate for PA's over a season. -1.7 WAR x 3 is - 5.1, which would far surpass the lowest WAR in a single season ever (Jerry Royster, 1977, -4.05) That's how bad he's been. So please stop with this illusion of some kind of market for Andrew Vaughn, and that's what went into the decision to keep Andrew Vaughn on the roster.

You know it will be "unacceptable to the masses" because it's bat s%*# crazy and illogical. Let me say it for the folks in the back. ANDREW VAUGHN HAS BEEN THE WORST PLAYER IN BASEBALL THIS YEAR. Tim Elko would have more value on the trade market than Andrew Vaughn, for a number of reasons. Your premise makes no sense

The problem is this decision simply came down to cost. When they got in a room and discussed roster moves, Andrew Vaughn's salary played a major role in the discussion. And we're not talking about a player making $25 million a year. Tim Elko has done everything he can do in AAA. He's 26, this team is one of the worst in the league, and the player "blocking" Elko has the worst WAR in the major leagues right now. Literally out of 1,112 players, Andrew Vaughn is No. 1,112 in MLB in 2025. He's had over 2,400 PA's with the White Sox in his career, and has totaled -1.7 WAR during that time. Tim Elko will be a distant memory for MLB in 4-5 years, there is a more than good chance he's a AAAA player, will thrive in Japan. But the Sox have NO REASON not to find out right now...but simply don't want to swallow the $5.8 million price tag of Vaughn, because they don't care about the product they put on the field.

I'd literally rather work than watch 😂

Yeah, I thought about that as well. Bad organizations would be much more likely to stay bad, and it would get tricky to manage it, but I still think there is probably some details you could add into the rules if a bunch of smart people sat in a room for a few days and hashed it out…I think it could actually work. Never will happen obviously, but I just keep going back to how archaic the idea of a draft really is. Fun offseason convo to have I guess

While obviously not perfect (don't know if any solution is) it's for sure on the right track. To take it a step further, what if there wasn't a "draft" at all? Every team has the same amount of money to spend for "rookie player acquisition" and there is a period of time when it starts, just like unrestricted free agency. Players declare just like they would for the draft. But the pool becomes open and any player can talk to any team. It's up to the teams to decide if they want to employe a strategy of spending their entire sum on 1-2 players, or spread it out over 7-8 players. It also lets the players decide the situation they want to go to. I'm sure there are holes to this idea, but I've thought about it a bit and while there is an element to just having to see it play out to see if it works, I don't see one glaring problem that stands out that tells me it isn't doable.

I don't have a solution for the how you change the draft structure in pro sports, someone way smarter than me would have to come up with something, but I've long believed it's a completely unfair process that needs to be addressed. Yes, no one is holding a gun to anyone’s head to play a professional sport, but being a fan in Chicago, we've watched all of our favorite teams select players in the top part of multiple drafts that I’m 99% sure would have prospered if a different team would have selected them. The Sox have had more players than I'd like to remember that were taken high in the first round, rushed through the minors, and you can just see a lack of development at the major league level. It’s happened too many times for it to be coincidence. But the issue is those players don’t have a choice on what team is in control of that development. How many millions of dollars have they cost athletes that already have an incredibly short career span? I will not hold it against Carl Williams, or any parent, to ensure their son/daughter is put in the best situation possible.

Courtney Cronin was on ESPN Radio today and mentioned that Wickersham spoke to Caleb multiple times to confirm quotes and stories, so it 100% came from Caleb and Carl. I don’t think he’s doing it to harm the Bears, I’m sure this book Wickersham has written was in the works for quite some time, and Caleb was honest (in his view) of what transpired. I also don’t think it needs to be a large distraction this upcoming season. It will be talked about at OTA’s I’m sure, but then people will move on and Caleb playing well will make everyone forget about it that much quicker