WestEddy

So then, I'll put you down in the "wins matter" column, which validates Getz's acquisition of major league bullpen depth pieces. I believe that when this team starts winning again, the fans will come back in throngs.

Give an inch, get an inch. If somebody's going to pretend that trading Matt Thompson and passing on signing Michael A. Taylor were catastrophic moves that portend a complete collapse of civilized society, then no, I won't be joining in the chorus calling for senseless firings of guys who were just hired.

He doesn't seem to know as much as our own insiders. Or he did, and he held that little tidbit back to maintain "access".

If winning games in 2025 isn't important, then I look forward to you never referencing 121 losses again. I'm being constantly beaten over the head with "121 losses", like it's killing the fanbase, and when children still pay attention, it causes all sorts of anxiety disorders, denying families bonding opportunities, and it's this cloud of shame I should feel the weight of. Winning games 42-60 matters or it doesn't. If it does, then shoring up the bullpen and creating depth is key to that. If Getz can create value by trading a marginal guy who was able to strike out 16-year-old kids learning the game in a distant land, then parlaying that into a better prospect in July, all the better. And why do you keep saying 121 wins? Is that auto-correct, or are you setting the bar for this team to break the single season win record by 5 games? Can you explain how having 6+ starters to find innings for in Kannapolis translates to having a full major league bullpen? Surely you're not suggesting rushing guys like Fajardo and Combs up to the majors. And relying on guys like Bush and Iriarte to step into the bullpen is what left us with a group of 1.4 WHIP set-up throwers last year. Pick a lane. Either you want Getz to build a team that valiantly wins 60 games, or you want him to complete forsake the big club in the service of filling the minor leagues with every body who doesn't run fast enough to get away. Last year's bullpen was a catastrophe. Layer Grifol's misuse with an historic cloud of bad luck that was so distracting and demoralizing, reliable vets were playing like panicked rookies. (There, I used your mantra. Are you happy?) So yeah, a veteran arm like Tim Hill (who the hoi polloi screamed sucked and didn't even deserve major league innings in the first place) sucked here, then went to a more stable environment, and realized his potential. Trading an 8th round draft pick is not "dumping" them. You also mention "recent draft pickS" with a plural "S". I can count one "recent" draft pick Getz traded out of the last 4 drafts. Are there any other draft picks he's traded ill-advisedly I don't know about? One guy seems to turn into "multiple" with you.

That's what the Twins' beat reporter conveyed after he delivered an incomplete report on a trade rumor. Again, we have no idea how far along any trade talk between the teams went. You can pretend that Getz turned down a top 100 prospect for Fedde, if you want. Nobody outside those with a narrative to flog reference that rumor like there was any legs to it.

Because "future pieces" are the only commodity we have a glut of. You can continue to complain that the Sox won't go out and start assembling a $100M bullpen. It's not going to happen right now. You claim this team is about 4-5 years off from being competitive. Do you actually believe we should be signing bullpen arms to long term deals who will be around in 5-8 years? That's sillly. and Of course Cam Booser and Tyler Gilbert shouldn't be getting paid $5-7M. They're pre-arb, for heaven's sake.

And nobody traded a top 100 prospect at last year's deadline. Are you saying they should have held onto Fedde and Kopech, and waited for a better market for pitchers in the off-season? Perhaps the pro scouting department wasn't competent, and that's why they replaced most of it after last season. Yes, it's irritating that Getz seems to have been spun around on the Fedde trade and got short-changed. There's no reason to cram the Crochet trade into that framing, and pretend he got hosed on that one, too. Please notify me when somebody trades a starting pitcher for THREE TOP FIFTEEN (in the game) PROSPECTS!!! The dynamics of prospects have shifted, and nobody is trading those guys. So if you're going to expect a GM to do what nobody else in the game is able to do, then you're going to be regularly disappointed. The Crochet trade was not a gaffe. It was a very good trade that even the guys here who pretend that every roster move is catastrophic and damning have acknowledged it was a good return. The Fedde trade was a prospect light. The jury's still out on Vargas. Kopech was a head case who had 2 good outings before the trade where he actually started listening to his coaches. There aren't even any WE COULDA HAD KEASCHALL rumors for Kopech. Could Getz have gotten more? Sure. Kopech didn't help him. I agree that Getz has to avoid gaffes like the Fedde return. That trade seemed forced. The Crochet trade was a good, old-fashioned haul any fanbase should be proud of.

Okay, you're not going to answer my question. Money is a resource they don't seem to want to dole out on relief arms at $5-$7M a clip. You will argue that our minor league system is lacking in everything, yet, we don't have a rookie ball arm/low-A bullpen arm to spare to create a bevy of major league bullpen arms to avoid last year's catastrophe.

Are you going to pretend to not understand the difference between starting pitchers in low-A ball and a major league bullpen?

Last year's bullpen was a disaster. I thought it was an interesting path to sign a bunch of rehabbing closers and set-up guys, but pretty much all of them were released or traded for cash. I'd say timing didn't work out, you'd say Getz panicked. This year, he's steering clear of that approach, and he's stocking up on guys who will be ready day one. It makes sense to me that he's not going to get trapped into using journeymen AAA starters as bullpen pieces again. They do have a glut of pitching. There's not even enough rotation spots in 4 levels of minor leagues to accommodate the number of prospects they have. While Combs and Fajardo seem to have more talent than the upper level guys they shipped out last year (Mena, Thompson), it's still dealing from wealth, rather than "shipping out young prospects".

The "2 sides" kind of force each other into their own particular corners. You can even feel the narrative shift from reasonable to "everybody must be fired"/"no, you should be thanking him for his genius". I'll agree that most of the trades have been underwhelming. But I feel it's like a guy trying to run an auto repair shop after he's been burglarized of all his tools. I just want to watch the rest of the movie to see how it turns out without the guy behind me screaming that I should be joining him in yelling for the theater manager to be fired.

At least 2 teams paid veteran infielders $4M+ for replacement level production, the Royals and White Sox. I'm sorry that makes you sad.

We didn't develop Maldonado. He was an obvious sop to a Manager Getz wanted to fire, anyway. My point is I'm talking to people who are pretending that a pitcher who had a historically great year at AA failed like nobody has ever failed before. So, of course, if Colson Montgomery comes up, hits .250/.310/.430 in his first stint, the mopes will scream that he's an abject failure, and everybody who has jobs, ever, should be fired.

I'm retired, so you've already gotten your side of the bargain. How about if I give up Mayonnaise every other Tuesday? You want people fired if something out of their control goes wrong. Why is that fair? I don't want anybody fired unfairly.

Soroka was very cheap. So was Shuster. They both turned out to be fine bullpen arms. Shewmake made the minimum. Gowens was in A-ball. Lopez made about the same as Adam Frazier and outperformed him. $4M is about the going rate for that. The Cease deal looks like garbage to somebody wearing garbage-colored glasses. Thorpe made all the Southern League hitters his bitches. He had, like, 2 bad outings out of 9 in the bigs. I guess it's fun to pretend that a pitcher who did really well did really bad. Stokes the narrative. Half the pitchers in baseball have control issues. And Getz just "traded" Wilson for Eisert. I've admitted that the Fedde trade was a player light, and that Getz was hoodwinked. Looks like Vargas was compromised. Nobody was trading top 100 prospects at that deadline. Getz tried too hard to make it happen. If you would rather have 18-year-olds than competent bullpen arms, then you don't get to wail on about 121 losses. You get to blow kisses at the sky and thank God for giving you what you wanted all along.

Bleacher Report dings them because the Crochet trade didn't bring back major leaguers. Disqualified. The CBS list docks them for not pursuing a disastrous trade of Luis Robert in a clearly dubious market. That's silly. So you posted links to 2 C grades that explain why they were being unreasonably harsh, and their reasons are nonsensical.

I'll be a little let down. It has to be an actual failure. Not having a slightly uncomfortable strikeout rate in his first year in the bigs, but he hits .052 in 500 PAs, and gets moved off of SS within days, he's so bad.

You're blaming the pitching coaches right now, so I guess you consider yourself a big nobody. The Eloy, Banks, Grossman and DeJong trades were fine. The Bummer trade was okay. The Fedde trade was about a prospect short. Jury's still out on Vargas. The Cease deal was fine. Nothing to have a parade over, but it's on the Sox to develop those guys. The Booser and Gilbert trades are interesting. Trading from a glut of pitching to back up the bullpen. If you're considering deals like Matt Thompson for Bailey Horn to be an unimaginable nightmare, I can't imagine how easy and carefree your life must be for you to engage in such silly hyperbole.

It's a rebuild. I thought win-loss records didn't matter in a rebuild.

Can you show us a copy of this contract you signed with MLB where they guarantee that every single prospect that comes through our system will become a hall-of-famer? No, how about this? If Colson Montgomery is a reasonably good first year major leaguer when he eventually is promoted, you quit your full time job, quit being a moderator here, and go walk up and down Michigan avenue wearing a placard saying you're a failure? That seems a lot more fair.

It's warranted. Why are you giving them a pass? Do you work for them?

I see publications online giving him a solid B for the Crochet trade and the signings he's made. The rest of the world doesn't live in "I hate Chris Getz" land. They actually make objecting observations.

The Cease deal made the White Sox better. And so will this Eisert claim. I'm not sure why you're rooting for a failure so that Chris Getz can be fired.

Why, does Hahn sneak into Montgomery's gym and coach him at night, even though he's no longer with the organization? I believe that Chris Getz developed Colson Montgomery. It was good of Hahn to hire Mike Shirley. No, it's like you're talking to somebody who isn't trying to be your little internet buddy and agree with all the goofiness you're spewing right now. You've yet to list out a failure I'm supposed to blame Getz for. Bone spurs in Thorpe's elbow? Are you saying Getz chloroformed him, and had a secret operation to put those in his arm? That's silly. Don't say that anymore.

What's really funny is that half of the Dodgers' pitching staff are going to be Dave Draveckys walking around the hospital this season. We act like it's so great the Dodgers spend so much money, but they have to, it's like the Dodgers have a Soylent Green machine in their clubhouse, grinding up the arms of every pitcher they catch. The White Sox have one guy who they're going to be prudent and take it slow with, and you all act like the Sox are worse. The WHO should issue a warning against the Dodgers.