Tony

Listen to the podcast. They talk a lot about this. There are a lot of shapes and sizes for GM's. As they discuss on the podcast, a good GM has to have a ton of traits. In 99/100 cases, one person isn't strong in all of those traits. You have to be a good leader of people and management, and have a very good staff around you that fills in those weak spots.

I think there is a little more nuance there than you are giving credit for. As three former GM's discussed on the podcast, there were relationships built over time with counterparts, and you understood their mission and what they were trying to accomplish. Hahn talked about GM's he enjoyed dealing, based on how they conducted their dealings and what the ultimate purpose was, and all three hosts discussed frustrations with dealing with GM's that seemed to be more interested in fact-finding missions and information gathering than ultimately wanting to close a deal. Nightengale offered very little detail in his statement behind why teams may have been getting frustrated with Getz, but I would put good money on the fact Nightengale isn't just making up that anecdote. It would be very safe to assume 2-3 GM's told him that, and he felt confident enough to put that out there, given what he had heard. Again, doesn't get into why they were frustrated with him, and as I said earlier, I'm not using it as a shot against Getz at this point, none of us have enough information to go off of on this specific topic to form an informed opinion or take a passionate stance on the topic. But I personally don't believe when it relates to Robert/Getz and the trade deadline, GM's were getting frustrated with Getz simply because of the high ask. That happens every day in GM conversations. And if a team won't move off those asks, then they end up keeping the player, pretty simple. I take it as more related to what was discussed on this podcast. Mixed-messages sent by a GM to another team, a willingness to deal then all the sudden pulling back the offer, or spending a lot of time on something that continues not to make any significant progress....could be a lot of different things, and I think a lot of those skills get sharpened over time. Some people are very natural in negotiations, but as a former player like Getz, trade conversations with other GM's, GM's that have been in their roles for a decade+, that has to be an acquired skill that is learned over time.

According to BRef, he's got an 8.2 WAR over a 162 game average. So that's probably not going to keep up...but if he can be a 4 WAR player for the Sox, it would help the rebuild in a big way.

Correct, brain fart there.

Yes, thought that part was interesting too, especially with the Nightengale report a last week that GM's were getting frustrated with Getz. Not saying it's 100% true as Nightengale has a questionable track record, and I'm not even taking a shot at Getz...I think it speaks to another part of the GM game that often gets overlooked and that's relationship building with other counterparts. Rick talked about almost sending Sale* to Washington, Rizzo not being overly pleased they didn't land him...but then getting the deal done for Eaton in Washington because they already laid a lot of the groundwork previously

Didn't see this posted anywhere, but very possible I missed it. Listened to this yesterday and while nothing was earth shattering, found certain elements to be interesting. Two biggest takeaways: - Rick telling Jerry after 2022 and then again in 2023 that he basically had to fire him, he didn't deserve another shot at a rebuild. - How involved Jerry still is and the process of Rick having to provide updates each step of the way. Specifically with the Quintana deal to the Cubs, how Jerry really wanted him to go to the Brewers instead of the Cubs, because of the optics involved. Which speaks to the personality of the GM and how important it is to have a spine and not be a "yes man" You obviously have to take Rick on his word with this stuff, and everyone may have a different stomach for that, but none the less, found the conversation interesting.

Yes. Literally every day on the radio in Chicago, the talk is 50/50 on the game itself, and if the Cubs are going to re-sign Tucker. If they don't, and don't have a long post season run this season, Cub fans are NOT going to be pleased. *I will say as we sit here on August 5, Cub fans are also pissed that Tucker has been pretty awful the last month as they have lost the division lead.

I agree, and I know this topic is about 2026, but bigger picture, they need to add a lot more power to the lineup, that would be my biggest priority. But with the CBA where it’s at, I don’t see them making any significant investments this offseason

In both 2026 and beyond, the lineup needs significantly more thump. LF/RF/1B/DH all need an upgrade. The slg. needs to be higher across the board. Some of that is going to be have to solved with $$. I wouldn't spend a ton on pitching at the moment, feel like they have a big enough collection of arms right now, and with Bannister seemingly getting good results out of guys, I'd spend my resources on getting more power on this team.

That’s not really the right attitude, though. Luis Robert is very likely the best CF “available” for the Sox the next two years. Meaning outside of trading real assets to acquire a CF better than Robert, or signing an FA who is better..Luis Robert is the best CF they have. If the trade market is light for Robert…there really isn’t a downside to keeping him. The money quite frankly is irrelevant. It’s not ours, and if there is one thing history has shown us, specifically on both sides of town…just because a team sheds the salary of a high priced player doesn’t mean they’ll magically replace that salary with something different. According to Kenny/Rick, the Sox offered Machado somewhere around a $250 million dollar contract. When he didn’t sign, that money wasn’t given out to 3-4 other players, Jerry simply sat on that cash. With no cap, I’m sick of talking about “getting players off the books” or a “bad” contract…until there is an actual hard cap, none of it matters.

This 100% changes the dynamic around everything, and have said in the past I'll be hopeful when he eventually fully takes control. Slate is clean for the White Sox once Jerry is gone. Ishbia will also have to prove it from a performance standpoint, but more than willing to give him a fair shot.

This board admittedly just stays in a vicious "loop of disagreement" when it comes to the positive vs. negative takes on the overall health of the organization. As I've always said, I won't fault or get in the way of anyone trying to be positive. Where I chime in is when the "positive" group will take shots at those being "negative' And here is why. Since 2013, the Sox have played 13 seasons. Out of those 13 seasons, the Sox have had a team above .500 twice. 2 times. 1 Division win, 0 playoff series victories. As everyone knows, it's been 20 years since the last playoff series win. I agree with a lot of what you wrote. The team does look improve and there are players in the organization that look like they could be quality major league players for the foreseeable future. The organization has a LONG way to go, we know all too well about the issues with ownership. So if you want to be bullish about the future of the organization, you absolutely can. But that positivity, objectively, is built off hope & faith. That's cool, but you can't blame people for taking a more negative approach to things after the last decade+ of futility for this organization. It's been an absolutely dreadful 15+ years on the South Side, and no one should begrudge a fan for taking a "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude around the White Sox.

It's interesting you use the word "holdovers" because I've used the same word in thinking about Robert. I agree with the overall idea trading him JUST to trade him doesn't really do much for anyone, I can live with holding onto him if teams are offering their 16th best prospect. However, I do think there is something to the idea of Robert being the last "representative" from the core of the last regime, and getting him out of the organization sort of "turns the page" on that chapter. Can't be measured, and kind of a meatball take honestly, but I do think there is something to that. And I'm not accusing Robert of being a bad clubhouse guy or a bad influence, but with the positive play coming from Colson, Teel, Quero, etc....just feels like it's time.

Since 2023, the White Sox are 142-291. In that same stretch, the Rockies are 148-284. Piss off.

The Padres are basically a somewhat successful version of what Kenny and Rick wanted for the Sox.

That has the makings of a very funny conversation. "YOU TOLD ME WE WERE TRADING ROBERT FOR CASH!" "I mean, we did. We got Kash back." "NO, CASH!" "Right...Kash."

Houser officially scratched

There is almost zero upside in starting Houser. He's 32 and having a career year, in 11 starts. Small sample size. He's also facing a playoff team in the Phillies. If he gets shelled today, which would be the first time that has happened for him in 2025, that would give me pause as a GM looking to bolster my team for the stretch run. The entire premise is built on him being able to pitch in the post season for someone. Could he add to his value by shutting the Phils down? Sure, but I think he do more damage to his value than help it today. Sit him.

I've got an idea...

I think it looks the way it’s supposed to look. In most cases, good players cost more money. More good players = More wins. But I think we’re drifting from the main point. What problem are we trying to solve here? I think that needs to be identified first. Because we talk about small market teams not being able to compete. If MLB puts in a salary floor and cap…are the Pirates going to re-sign Paul Skeens then? I have serious doubts they invest that much in a player of that caliber. So it doesn’t help the Pirates, but it limits the suitors in the market for Skeens and a huge deal because of the cap, hurting the player. I understand the issue that we DO have the normal teams in FA that are always the big spenders and don’t seem to give any mid market team a shot….but I don’t think there is enough evidence to tell us a salary cap is going to dramatically change how the Pirates or Marlins operate

I think it's fair to be able to separate the two. He gave a lot of people (myself very much included) a ton of great memories growing up, he was an icon in his sport, I was fortunate to meet him a handful of times as well, always was very nice in interactions. Doesn't mean he didn't have some serious bagage that understandably upset a lot of people. However, I agree that when he dies, I'm not going to rag on someone from memorializing the person. If you didn't like them, maybe keep it to yourself this go around, really no need to bring it all back up when they die.

Division leaders as of July 29th, 2025 AL East: Toronto (5th overall in payroll) AL Central: Detroit (17th overall in payroll) AL West: Astros (6th overall in payroll) NL East: Mets (2nd overall in payroll) NL Central: Brewers (24th overall in payroll) NL West: Dodgers (1st overall in payroll) That doesn't scream "broken" to me. Again, there are things that need to be fixed and adjusted, but a salary cap also isn't going to fix all of baseball's problems.

It was a very big story at the time.

To be clear, I don't think everything is perfect, and I'm as guilty as anyone of getting incredibly annoyed when were watching our phones in November and every alert seems to be the Dodgers signing another free agent. That's not great for the game and I'd like to find a solution on that. But even in your reply here, you referenced the Nats and Arizona as not being "small market teams" and cited their metro area ranks. Where do the White Sox fall on that ranking list? Why does a team in the third largest metro market act like a small market team? There are problems that need to be fixed. I don't believe a salary cap solves those issues.

Are you going to argue that a imposing a salary cap doesn't ultimately suppress what players can earn?