19 hours ago19 hr Author 49 minutes ago, hogan873 said:Posting about how Dominguez can't close games or how the bullpen overall is lacking or Venable's use of Colson at 3rd or even how bad an owner JR is are current issues that are not positive. These are the things we should be talking about, and rightfully so. This original post is seemingly old news, talking about conditions that have most likely improved greatly. And the "data" is bad with an extremely small sample size. It reeks of "things are going well, and I don't like that, so here, read this!"We should be talking about the good and the bad...in the present and future. Everything is not all roses and sunshine. There's plenty to discuss about what still needs to improve. We already lived through the dark ages of terrible teams - on and off the field.It was quite literally published TODAY.
19 hours ago19 hr Author 51 minutes ago, WestEddy said:You seem to be pretending a lot, here, so you can just toss this article on the pile.Well I am glad to agree that your sources are worth just as much.
19 hours ago19 hr 29 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:There's plenty to be critical of, but 100+ is like 13% of the league which is certainly substantial enough for any study. It doesn't mean the study is true or 100% accurate, but it's certainly not a small sample issue.I'll agree with you here. It's an everything issue. The article is unscientific. I would guess they culled quotes from past reporting and produced content out of that. The Sox have a bad reputation around the league. We all agree. A large part of it seems to be that the Sox have a low payroll. The org also fell to s%*# during KW/Hahn's tenure. I sure would love to see any reporting on whether the Sox have addressed the areas that some players mentioned. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the focus of the NYTimes.
19 hours ago19 hr 33 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:I'm going to guess the Sox have changed very little about accommodations being provided to players. Maybe there is a better video room or something, but doubt they're leading the league in post-game spreads, or that they're chartering family of players around during times of need and etc. They're certainly not paying players well as they rely mostly on guys who aren't eligible to be paid yet. Reminder again that this is a job.There's plenty to be critical of, but 100+ is like 13% of the league which is certainly substantial enough for any study. It doesn't mean the study is true or 100% accurate, but it's certainly not a small sample issue.How many of those 100 players have played for the White Sox though? And for those that did, when did they play for them? Seems like the majority of info in this going to be second hand and outdated. Not suggesting there aren’t things worth criticizing the org for (there are plenty), but thinking the findings of this poll are somehow meaningful is a massive leap. By the way, none of this has anything to do with you but rather the OP has drawn many conclusions.
19 hours ago19 hr 9 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:How many of those 100 players have played for the White Sox though? And for those that did, when did they play for them? Seems like the majority of info in this going to be second hand and outdated. Not suggesting there aren’t things worth criticizing the org for (there are plenty), but thinking the findings of this poll are somehow meaningful is a massive leap. By the way, none of this has anything to do with you but rather the OP has drawn many conclusions.I've already said I wouldn't take much away from the negative responses or the poll at all, and given the youth of the team I'm skeptical any White Sox even participated in the study.
19 hours ago19 hr 52 minutes ago, vilehoopster said:I think that he, like you, want to just continue to complain and b**** about Getz and Jerry; that neither one of you want to or are able to move on from that position and admit that things are clearly improving and that Getz is doing a good (great?) job.And I believe he, and you, dig around searching for this or that stat, post, or source that you can use to continue your narrative that the Sox organization is terrible and cannot change.That is what I believe.I don't need to do much complaining about Jerry, there is an article posted in this thread with former players doing enough of it. You should check it out, maybe you'll realize that its not just posters on this site that think the organization has done/is doing a shitty job.
18 hours ago18 hr 30 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:I've already said I wouldn't take much away from the negative responses or the poll at all, and given the youth of the team I'm skeptical any White Sox even participated in the study.If they did they're probably still looking at everything with stars in their eyes, so I would be cautious of their input in the same ways I would be cautious with a 13 year vet who by this point probably hates every org he's played in.
18 hours ago18 hr That yt was almost all about player moves with the Suns...Can anyone find The Athletic article on changes in the Suns' organization since then...especially with how fans are being treated much better regarding free universal tv accessibility in the region and much cheaper food/concessions deals in stadium?
18 hours ago18 hr 13 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:Good thing it’s a completely different person for a completely different sport.
18 hours ago18 hr 5 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:Again, zero votes on the good side, and ranking 4th worst with 21 votes on the bad side. With 73 votes counted, that means about 30% spoke negatively of the Sox. The emphasis again was the team not investing in the players, infrastructure, and taking care of the players.https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7382921/2026/06/24/mlb-player-poll-desired-destinations-teams/?unlocked_article_code=1.slA.WiIU.UPj_7gZT_XBo&source=athletic_user_shared_gift_article_copylink&smid=url-share-ta&fbclid=IwY2xjawSo1s1leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFUOFh6Y3RGdERFdVZWeWlTc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHiuTZiFi1E-ThJAvO_O2TEw2yXJ9OEZ5QcMSbdeFvcA4hTxRsVz-S108jVYZ_aem_EZqVE7H5LaqtBEj387kkEwIIRC that video room quote was in the last survey like this we saw, and it seems to be hearsay from someone who knows a player that played here. We know they have a Trajekt machine now, so they're improving on these types of things. I'd be interested to find out if the actual video room is still a laptop in a closet - I suspect not.Nice to see Venable is well respected. Not surprising they have a bad rep above him. It's well deserved. Hope that changes with Ishbia at the top, and it seems like Getz & his staff are doing a better job on the levels below Reinsdorf. The "they fail players" perception was absolutely true. It's changing for the better.
14 hours ago14 hr 4 hours ago, caulfield12 said:Nonetheless, I bet few Suns fans wish they could trade ownership groups with the Bulls.
11 hours ago11 hr 2 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:Nonetheless, I bet few Suns fans wish they could trade ownership groups with the Bulls.https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7039220/2026/02/12/nba-mat-ishbia-phoenix-suns-rebuild/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiRhYTBwqGVAxUAk2oFHQ7IMIwQFnoECAoQAg&usg=AOvVaw30Q-O12VeUa7X5623yS_s3"Ishbia sank the Suns, then he turned them into winners"Has been very outspoken on tanking/non-competitiveness issue as well.I guess a lot of these polls would also still reflect the baggage of the horrific Robert Salter ownership era...racism/sexual harassment, misogyny, etc. Edited 11 hours ago11 hr by caulfield12
4 minutes ago4 min A beef laid out in the first few paragraphs was about teams that were cheap as f***. The Athletic immediately interpreted that as low payrolls, and focused on that.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.