Chimpton

Yes that is a big difference!

I think the current White Sox are more like the Washington Generals!

The high asking price is to try and fool us into thinking he is a hard negotiator, but all the the other GMs know he will fold.

The asking for high returns is similar to what we got last winter about Cease. Other GMs won't offer anything near what Getz is supposedly asking, and when Getz gets deperate he will accept a lower return because Crochet and probably Robert will be gone before Spring Training or at the latest by opening day.

Yes, once on the MLB team they seem incabale of adjusting, or seem not to be coached in a way that helps them adjust, too many prospects who are hitting well at AAA struggle when brought up and face MLB pitching on a consistent basis and are then just sent back down to AAA and yo yo between the two, there seems to be little or no coaching or development after they join the MLB team.

Not so sure what you mean by 'smart hitter', but for a few years he was very good before suddenly falling off the cliff and becoming bad very quickly. But in general White Sox hitting prospects seem to lack the consistency to have a long career, or lack the ability to adjust when they get a poor patch. Also many seem to struggle with the step up from AAA to MLB, so many seem to bounce around that AAAA level and not take the next step.

The only one that sprang to mind was Tim Anderson, that was partly my point, is this a White Sox thing or is developing a hitting prospect harder?

Thank you, that was what I was wondering about. So projecting hitting prospects is harder and as a result riskier.

That is partly what I was asking, is it just harder to identify and develop hitting prospects or is it just a White Sox thing?

Arguably Semien and Tatis only developed fully after leaving the White Sox. Abreu was harly a prospect when signed as he had years of experience, albeit in Cuba. As for Robert I will give you that one, although his 2024 was not MVP calibre.

Is it harder to identify/develop hitting/position players than pitching prospects? I only ask because the White Sox recently have an appaling record both with position players drafted or position player prospects traded for. whereas pitchers seem to be more successful. Going back to 2010 Frirst Round Picks arguably only Tim Anderson has been a success as a position player pick, whereas Sale, Rodon and Crochet have all been good picks as pitchers. So basically is it harder to identify position players who will succeed and even if you pick highly touted prospects, like Vaughan, is it harder for them to develop to MLB level?

Another great first round pick by the White Sox. Those first round picks of Madrigal and Vaughan who were supposed to be can't miss picks are sure looking bad 5/6 years later.

So a 1 game improvement then!

Especially if you are terrible at developing prospects.

Yes, Jerry Reinsdorf.

Would that partly be the fact that his body and muscles were primed for basketball and that it would have taken proper muscle conditioning for baseball, and at his age and star status and media attention that was never going to happen.

Well the Royals did turn in to winning organisation this season, after Grifol had left!

Yes but someone else should be sacking Getz! Although if that same person is picking the replacement it will just be more of the same.

Not trying to argue with you just interested but do managers really make that little difference in baseball? Being from the UK my main sporting knowledge is from football(soccer) and cricket. In football top managers get paid millions because they do make a big difference in tactics and team selection that can make a big difference, hence underperforming teams often sack the manager mid season in the hope of transforming their season to avoid relegation. In cricket, the coach probably has less influence to the play on the field and more to do with the team selection. On the field the captain makes all the tactical changes such as who to bowl and when. Do the manager/coaches make more difference in American Football or the NBA? Or is the real difference the GM and their ability to construct a team that is capable of performing?

In that case why sack Grifol? A decent manager who nows how to organise a line up, when to go to the bullpen and which reliever to use may have stopped some of those games where they threw away a lead after the 7th inning. And a decent manager who actually inspired some of the players may have stopped some of the veteran players phoning in performances for 90% of the season, and may have got a bit more out of the other less than average players. Maybe I am wrong but certainly in other sports the manager can make a difference, I am not suggesting they would have been competing for postseason but maybe they wouldn't be competing for records of worst seasons.

The manager could make a difference between a historically bad 121 loss season and just a bad 100 loss season. Equally the manager could help start to change the clubhouse atmosphere and help younger players develop. You just need to look at Grifol and how little he did to help the younger players develop. Yes, the manager will make little difference in terms of get to postseason or anything like that but the nexy manager needs to be the right person or this decline could be terminal if the culture of the club doesn't change.

But didn't he fire 'almost everyone' during and after the 121 losses not before, and didn't he say that a complete rebuild wasn't needed and that they were aiming to compete this season before the season began?

Possibly, but for it to be truly top to bottom the man at the very top needs to change because otherwise the whole ethos of the organisation will not change and whoever gets brought in to replace the people fired will be limited in their ability to change things. Also with the current reputation of the organisation as at best disfunctional will the people they get in to replace the ones fired be any good? The trouble for Getz is that he lost any faith in his capabilities during this last season. If he had said at the beginning that this was going to be a slow process that required the organisation to undergo major surgery most people would have agreed and given him some leeway. But the nonsense about not wanting to waste a season and challenging again quickly, followed by this last season has lost Getz any faith people had in his abilities as a GM, and let's face it that faith wasn't great to begin with.

The solution probably involves a top to bottom clear out of the coaches and player development, scouting etc, before any player rebuild, because if the same old people repeat the same old things it is unlikely that a miracle will happen any time soon. But that isn't a realistic prospect under the current ownership so we will have to hope for that miracle!

That sums up how bad palyer development is because the Sox have had and wasted some high picks on position players in the last decade, think of first round picks Zak Collins, Jake Burger (although injuries played their part with him) Nick Madrigal and Andrew Vaughn. Even Colson Montgomery is not looking the sure fire player he was supposed to be.