Soxsi75

Rodon is going to start for us next year????? He better not be!! If he is, I'm thinking twice about how good our rotation is! Giolito, Keuchel, Lynn, Cease and the 5th spot really should have to go to Kopech, shouldn't it? Rodon is a piece of worthless garbage.

I was indifferent to this move until Colome signed with Minnesota. Now I hate this move. Should have used this money to resign Colome and let Rodon walk. Now Colome goes to Minnesota to help them, and we use the money we could have used to sign Colome to now resign Rodon. Not a good tradeoff.

I loved those 1975 uniforms too!! One of the reasons I became a White Sox fan!! And good old WSNS!! And maybe you're right, with the information available today, maybe it would be different?

Good point and well put. Thanks.

I'm an old school baseball fan too. Been following the White Sox since 1975. (Hence my name on this thread.) But I tried to keep an open mind and wanted to learn and look at more statistics like WAR. Just for the fun of it. Then I saw that our very own South Side Hitmen first baseman Jim Spencer had a WAR of -.03 in 1977. So one of the best defensive first basemen of this era and a solid power hitter was worse than a replacement player? And what made it even worse was his defensive rating was -.08?? What?? He saved Alan Bannister countless errors that year!! But a replacement player would be better than him? Had me and you lost me there. And please. I don't want any "Sabergeeks" getting on here and responding why this should be. It shouldn't. Pure and simple. If someone wants to talk baseball, I'd love to talk about that. But I don't want to talk any "Sabergeekness."

Yeah, OK good point. But how could you measure the lead off distance? A guess a marker on the field could work. But the biggest problem with that, is it makes it more difficult for the baserunner to steal if he wants to. And therefore, you're penalizing the baserunner for what the pitcher did. Having the pitcher maybe step back from the rubber to do so makes more sense, but then what would make him just keep doing that once he reaches his limit? Because then by bending the rule, he's still able to throw over as much as he wants. Just doing it a bit differently, so it would defeat the purpose.

OK. I think you might be right that the older people are the one's that don't think it's too slow and boring. And I guess you're saying the younger fans do. Then I'm going to say that's a shame. Because that's telling me the younger fans don't have the patience and attention span to learn the game. You say you text friends and check facebook while watching a game, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Because it is a leisurely paced game, I admit. But that's part of the beauty of it. If someone can't see that, then they don't understand the game. And don't want to take the time to learn it and appreciate it. We might be talking more of a generation gap issue here instead of a baseball issue, but it seems like "younger" people need constant, high level, excitement with everything without appreciating the beauty within and appreciating something that takes time. And why it takes time. You said you can watch several College and NFL games over the weekend that don't involve your favorite teams. Why? ( I'm not knocking it by asking because I can too.) Because college football games last longer than your typical baseball game. If you think because it's more exciting, more action then let me ask you this. Would you appreciate a 13-10 football game or do you prefer the wild 52-35 games that College Football now is? If you choose the 52-35 game and think the low scoring 13-10 would be boring then you're proving my point. I do get the strong feeling that you are much younger than I am, so as I said we might be talking more a generation gap here than anything else. So please don't take anything I'm writing here personally because it isn't meant to be. I just hope that someday you can begin to appreciate the deepness of the game, but if not I respect that. But I still don't think the game should be changed with stupid rules to cater to people who don't understand it. And by the way. For all the stupid ideas they have of rules changes to shorten the game, they can NEVER limit the times a pitcher can throw to first. You do that, and you might as well just give the base runner second base. Because what would happen is once the pitcher reaches his "limit" on times to throw over, the baserunner can then just take his "leadoff" ALL THE WAY TO WITHIN A STEP OF SECOND BASE!!! Why wouldn't he if there's no danger of getting picked off? So all that would have to happen, is the hitter just takes the next pitch, because the pitcher has to throw home, and the runner takes second with one step!! Not saying you are, but anyone who suggests limiting the times a pitcher can throw to first is proving my point that they don't understand the game. Actually, I'd have to go farther and say if they suggest that, they not only don't understand it, but know NOTHING about it.

I think this is terrible news. I HATE the rule changes!!! To me, they are nothing but the owners using COVID as an excuse/reason to shorten games. You know how to shorten major league games? You can't. Because all that can be done is to tell pitchers to stop throwing so hard and the hitters that it is once again an issue or stigma if you strike out too much. And neither of those things are gonna happen!! Also, why do they care so much about the length of games? College Football games are now lasting over 4 hours and they don't seem to care. The only thing I can think of, is baseball is trying to cater to the people who don't really understand the game who think "Baseball is too slow and boring." If you believe that, then don't watch it. I know the rules are the same for both sides, but every time the White Sox lose a 7 inning Doubleheader game, or lose an extra inning game when their opponent pushes across that winning run from second without even pretending to have earned it with a hit, I'll want to punch a wall.

What you're saying is true and I understand this. However, I admit I'm looking at it from the standpoint as a fan. Meaning, I simply care about the White Sox winning. I don't give a G*& Da&* about their "bottom line." It also isn't just about throwing money around. I realize that. But look at the position we are in and have been in. We were rebuilding and cut costs then. Now we've put together a team that is capable of winning now and if he picks this moment to "half ass it" by going cheap, after we already have been cutting costs, then yes feeling this way does show he doesn't care enough about winning. It's true that the Yankees have had a long drought between World Series titles. But by continuing to spend they're always in contention. Do you see the Yankees ever going 69-93 again with this salary structure?

Which makes the White Sox cheap and I'm sorry to have to say, they don't care enough about winning. Because I agree with you, Joc is a better bet. And we shouldn't have to worry about a "budget" when we've been rebuilding like we have and saving money. Now it's time to spend it since we now have a chance to win. Not spending it saying he doesn't care about winning.

Interesting analogy. But that all being said, you'd BETTER spend the money on the things that "it gives me more money to spend on other things I need to buy." Will the White Sox?

Good question in asking "But who are these other teams spending a ton of money?" EXCELLENT question in fact!! The answer to that is whoever signs Bauer or Springer I guess? Unless they'd be willing to take less because of the current economics? And if they were, couldn't the White Sox have still been in the running for them?

Very simple question. Was he the best player they could have gotten to play right field? If no, which I don't think he is, it's a bad move. That simple. Because money shouldn't be an object, because we have plenty to spend. But, of course, with our organization it always is. Constantly trying to bargain shop. So if anyone wants to argue that he is the best player available, I'd love to hear what you have to say. Sell me on that. But if you don't think he was the best available player, don't try and argue. Because that will simply mean the White Sox went cheap and I refuse to listen to any reasons why that should be. Money tight because of no fans in the stands? Terrible excuse because everyone had that problem last year.

"But I’m fairly confident Jerry didn’t just make Hawk the GM to grab headlines." You're right, that's not the only or even the main reason Hawk was hired to be the GM. Here's what impressed Reinsdorf about Harrelson and it's something not a lot of people remember. In the offseason of 1983 to 1984 Julio Cruz was as good as gone, as he was already to sign with the Angels as a free agent. Harrelson was the one who convinced Cruz to resign and stay with the White Sox. Reinsdorf was impressed how Harrelson was able to convince Cruz to stay. He wasn't hired as GM right away, not until 1986, but this incident is where Reinsdorf began thinking of Hawk as a possible GM.

You have a good point. I guess I'm saying this mostly because of the possibility of drawing Cleveland. Their pitching in a 2 out of 3 series is extremely dangerous. And we all know this. ANYONE can beat ANYONE 2 out of 3.

I completely agree with you. It would make winning the division worthless. Simply put, this better NOT happen. It will make actually the entire regular season worthless. Baseball isn't hockey or basketball or any other sport. It takes 162 to determine the better team. ANYONE can beat ANYONE 2 out of 3. So playoff seedings won't mean anything either. There are no positives to this. It is degrading to the game in every way.

What do you mean by "What are you even talking about?" I mean what I said. And I'll re-quote myself. It should be the 3 division winners by record 1-2-3 and then the other 5 should be ranked strictly by record!! Houston is only a .500 team. Cleveland, though slumping right now, is still 4 over. So our draw should be the team with the worst record if we can keep the best record in the league. Right now, the team with the third best division winning record gets to face a team with a worse record then we do. And though we may have a better all around team than Cleveland, which by the way I was arguing we were even when they were ahead of us in the standings, they are still a VERY dangerous draw. Facing Bieber and their pitching is something no one's going to want to face in a miniscule series. So my whole point is because of our record, we shouldn't have them as a draw when someone else has a worse record than them.

Don't mean to be having a melt down about it. It's just ridiculous that they are literally being screwed over for having the best record instead of being rewarded.

So if the season ended today, the prize the White Sox get for having the best record in the AL is to face Shane Bieber and Cleveland? Meanwhile, the third best division winner will get to draw under .500 Houston?? Who came up these kinds of pairings? It should be the 3 division by record 1-2-3 and then the other 5 should be ranked strictly by record!!

They do? OK Good. So there's at least some incentive there then. Thanks. I didn't know that. Guess I didn't hear that, because if that's the case, why do they have to go to some remote place at all for the later rounds?

I saw the playoff pairings if the playoffs started today. And we would play.........the Twins. So winning the division will just mean we play the team we are battling for the division? Let's say we swap places with the Twins. They finish first and we finish 3rd. Then we would play........the Twins. With everyone going to some remote place, home field certainly won't matter. They really ought to reward the division winners a bit more in this ridiculous season. Make it so the division winner has to only win 2 games in that opening round where as the lower seeded non divisional winner has to win 3. Unless something like this is already in place.....then I stand corrected. So my question is, is there?

Mine too!! She was truly the SOUND of the White Sox and of Comiskey Park. I have such incredible memories of walking up to the ballpark before a game and before getting inside I could here her playing. It made me want to practically RUN to get inside!

Agreed.

Fair enough. Personally, I think you're overrating their lineup. Ramirez, Lindor, Santana and Reyes are the only guys who can hurt you. That's only 4 guys. There's isn't much different than Kansas City's which has Merrifield, Soler, McBroom and Dozier. And now they've traded Clevinger without any proven help to their lineup. They're HOPING Naylor is.

I agree if Clevinger will be here 5 years. But if he walks in 2 and Kopech is haunting us after that, then we aren't guaranteeing the playoffs for 5 years. We'd be actually hurting ourselves. That's what makes this tough.