ptatc

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Aug 7, 2016 -> 10:53 PM) "Many successful seasons"? During the last 36 years? How "many"? By my count, only five, given the team has only made it to the postseason five times during that period. Making it to the playoffs is what defines "success" in baseball, and nothing less. At least that's my point of view, and one shared by no less than our ace starter and perennial All Star, Chris Sale. He's on record saying he hasn't played in a "meaningful game" in his entire career since the Sox haven't made it to the postseason since he joined the team way back in 2012. So you are, of course, entitled to call a season "special" under your own terms, but successful? That is making it to the postseason, and nothing else. OK. Going back to your definition of success, how many times did they make the post season in the 30 years prior to JR's group buying the team? 1 time in 60 years.Fewer than with JR. Under JR ownership group they made the playoffs 5 times ( would have been 6 in 1994) in 36 years. Obviously the difference in the rules changed this but they weren't successful by your definition. Regardless of the post season, you can have the multiple good but not great season and I'll take the only World Series championship.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Aug 7, 2016 -> 08:41 PM) As I said, draw your own conclusion. If you are content with something special coming by once every nearly 40 years, well, to each his own. Be satisfied with just that. I'll join the chorus of others who hope for and expect better production than that. You are entitled to that view. However, they've had many successful seasons unless the 1983 team winning 99 games and that really good run in the 90's doesn't count. i would consider those special seasons along with the World Series win.

QUOTE (captain54 @ Aug 7, 2016 -> 08:32 PM) A silly argument. Really Look back at how baseball was structured between 1951-1967, during the 16 yr streak of winning seasons by the Sox. No divisional playoffs, no wild card. You either had the best record in the AL or NL, or you went home. The other question would be, with this current stellar ownership, winners of 1 championship in 36 tries, how is it they for the life of them, can't figure out how to get to the playoffs but once, in 11 yrs.? This is a different discussion. They have had a bad enough run lately that they deserve whatever people want to throw at them. My comment was directed at the comment that they have done nothing in the entire ownership of JR.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Aug 7, 2016 -> 07:56 PM) 36 years now with Jerry Reinsdorf as owner of the Chicago White Sox. 18 of those 36 years, or exactly 50% of his time as owner, the Sox have finished at .500 or below. 9 of those 36 years, or 25% of his time as owner, the Sox have won 90 or more games. 5 of those 36 years, or 14% of his time as owner, the Sox have reached the postseason. 1 of those 36 years, the Sox made it to the World Series, and they won it. Avg. game attendance in 1980, the year before JR bought the team: 14,819* (* - actual fans in attendance vs. tickets sold) Avg. game attendance in 2015, last full year of JR's ownership of team: 21,677 There ya go! That is the record of Jerry Reinsdorf as head honcho of the Sox. Has he "done nothing for the team or franchise" over nearly four decades as the owner? No, you can't say that. There was 2005, and it was magnificent. Outside of that wondrous year, well, you look at his record and draw your own conclusion. I know what I think! Good for you. I know what you think too. I disagree. I'll take the World Series win over the years of good but never winning the world series teams.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Aug 7, 2016 -> 07:13 PM) Yep you are supposed to bow at the JR shrine , no matter how far his loyalty to ex players runs the team into the ground and like it. Hell with that, I was a Sox fan before he owned the team and will be long after he is gone. I don't think anyone has said that. That is taking the "I hate JR" to the extreme. I think it's more the posters that are trying to say that no one currently with this team has done anything to help this team. That is extremely short sighted and big on revisionist history. I just disagree with the comment that he has done nothing for this team or franchise.

QUOTE (South Side Fireworks Man @ Aug 7, 2016 -> 07:11 PM) Thank you. 0 World Series.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Aug 7, 2016 -> 06:48 PM) So does this excuse the state we're in? Just look at everything now. The entire organization top to bottom is viewed publically as dynsfunctional, decrepit, and unable or unwilling to change. I'll be willing to bet when the time comes and a new owner takes over, immediate changes will take place for the White Sox and within 5 years everyone will know (whether it was publically stated by then) that our current regime in 2016 severly impacted the future of the ballclub because JR just didn't want a rebuild This is currently true which is why changes need to be made now. This is not true for the entire reign of JR however.

QUOTE (captain54 @ Aug 7, 2016 -> 06:25 PM) Basically BS. Look up the Sox record from 1951-1981. 16 straight winning seasons from 1951-67. Winning seasons in 72 and 77. On the way to 4 straight losing seasons with 2016. 2 of those stretches during the JR regime. Prior to that 68-77, 4 straight losing. You have to go back then to the end of WW II to find another bad stretch You go by record. I go by championships. how much would this board complain about the team if the currently were on the winning season streak with no championships. there would be complaining about how they can't finish a season or how the manager burns out the players and they can't win the world Series. The point of the game is Winning the World series or not.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Aug 7, 2016 -> 06:42 PM) Poor drafting/development is #1 and Terrible FA signings are 1a. I agree it's not necessary to overspend on talent, but it's not just excusable anymore to chalk up our failures with FA signings as bad luck or being snake bitten. We're consistently selecting the wrong person year after year when comparable players for similar salaries are achieving success. This just compounds our failures with issue #1 It does but I don't think it's the primary reason. The primary failure is the drafting/developing of players. that leads to all of the others.

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Aug 7, 2016 -> 05:41 PM) Exactly. Jerry wants to win, I have no doubt on that score at all. The caveat is though he wants to win "his way," under "his conditions." How's that worked out for 36 years basically? He's a brilliant business guy and real estate man, no question. That doesn't mean his way is smarter or better than the rest of baseball's and the record shows it hasn't worked very well. Mark Basically, better than the 30 years prior to his group buying the team.

QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Aug 7, 2016 -> 04:48 PM) I never understood this line of thinking. First off, it overvalues one comp pick, and is inconsistent with the other go-for-it moves. But in any case, signing players to one-year deals, which both Desmond and Fowler settled for, means you can just extend the QO next year and get the pick right back. If you believed these players were going to be good, which the Sox obviously did since they pursued them, it's a simple case of deferring the draft pick one year. How could that possibly have been more important? And you still have #10 and #49. I can see the argument that the risk is too great if you're giving up your only first rounder. But the Sox were perfectly set up to take advantage of the market, and unequivocally failed. Agreed. I think they just looked at the value. Was the player worth the contract plus the draft pick? They obviously, decided no.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Aug 7, 2016 -> 04:15 PM) Filling in the gaps with players THEY think are at market value has them dumpster diving. I think we all should agree that this is in part why they're at their current position. White Sox need accountability with their prospects and expectations need to be met. Look at their current system, it's embarrassing. For a team needing to rely on a draft so heavily we should expect successful drafts. No excuses, no "bad luck with player x being injured," nothing; it's the position they've put themselves in. Also admitting they need to draft better is an understanding they'll need all the help they can get with draft position. More slot money and better talent available. Losing is a must I disagree that this is why they are in this position. I think they are in the position because of poor drafting/development. Overspending at anytime (unless they are truly 1 player away) is just the wrong way to maintain a competitive team over an extended period of time.

QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Aug 7, 2016 -> 03:58 PM) I agree with this, and thus was OK losing out on guys like Heyward and Cespedes, etc. last winter. But passing on Fowler and Desmond was 100% unacceptable -- not in retrospect since they've been good -- but at the time. Super cheap relative to the market and super short term. The issue with those two was the draft pick loss. Would you rather have them or the additional draft pick to help the rebuilding? Not saying you're wrong but they obviously didn't want to lose the high draft pick.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Aug 7, 2016 -> 03:24 PM) Problem is you need to overspend to compensate for an inability to develop prospects That would only hurt the team in the long run. The better option is to draft and develop better while filling the gaps with players they think are at value.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Aug 7, 2016 -> 02:59 PM) A team that claims they want "to compete" and which came in last in offense last year does not pass up acquiring the very available Yoenis Cespedes and/or Ian Desmond last offseason in favor of Austin Jackson and Jimmy Rollins. I mean, enough with this "we want to compete" business already. Actions speak louder than words. I think the point you are missing is that they refuse to overpay for what they consider fair value for anything. They aren't going to overpay in money or trade value. They didn't think cespedes was worth 30 million for one year and they didn't consider Desmond worth the money plus draft pick. They run it like the NFL draft for value. They place a certain value on a player and won't go over it. So they want to compete but aren't going to overpay for anyone. They could have overpaid for Cespedes and it may have worked, however what if they overpaid for Upton or Gordon? Would you still be saying the same thing or would you be saying that they overpaid for bad players?

QUOTE (harkness @ Aug 6, 2016 -> 08:42 PM) well... the sox might have got screwed out of a run... But again in scoring situations this team locks up. A signature of the Ventura era. Do you remember the late 80's and early 90's White sox? Their calling card was 12 hits and 2 runs. the sox offense has always been like this, other than brief periods with guys like Thomas in the lineup.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 6, 2016 -> 07:31 PM) This. It means he is able to repeat his delivery with consistency, which was a major problem for him this season at OU. Or does it mean that in rookie ball many if the 18 year olds are swinging at everything. While it good to see him do well, I don't trust big performances in rookie ball. I would wait until he has a couple of season against older competition before proclaiming his delivery improved, unless of course there has been videos or live reports of the changes.

QUOTE (maxjusttyped @ Aug 5, 2016 -> 10:01 PM) Props to the White Sox development staff for getting Hansen turned around. That is a very pleasant surprise. Don't go crazy on him yet. It is rookie ball where he should dominate.

QUOTE (hi8is @ Aug 6, 2016 -> 12:41 PM) Please, please, please.... If that ever happened for me... I would die in peace. Dying during it would be the way to go.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 5, 2016 -> 10:16 PM) Let's face it folks, football is all but dead. Numbers of kids being allowed to play is down. You are pretty much guaranteed numerous concussions if you play. Parents aren't going to let their kids play in the future. Think about it. Starting in high school through college a football player would be lucky to not have double digit concussions. Then the speed of the NFL? Cmon concussions on almost every play. This sport has about 20 years left, max. Maybe flag football will take its place. Seriously. ... Because of concussions, this sport is on the way out. I'd think hockey would be in jeopardy too. Only way both will survive ... if the states of Texas and Alabama can churn out enough players to sustain the NFL and college football it "might" last more than 20 years. Hockey? I guess if Canadiens and Russians don't care about concussions and keep playing and supplying players it "might" last a while. You a partially corrdct. The version of football we know is dying. There is far too much money in the NFL for them not to have it. They will always find a way to keep it going.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 04:38 PM) Jeffrey Flanagan @FlannyMLB First diagnosis for Luke Hochever confirmed Thoracic Outlet Surgery. Will have 2nd opinion but surgery likely and season prob over. #Royals This will be an interesting recovery depending on what surgery they need to do. Some are relatively easy others are really difficult

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Aug 5, 2016 -> 12:35 PM) And miss out on the legendary Olympic Village debauchery? It is. There really is no way to describe it.

QUOTE (hi8is @ Aug 3, 2016 -> 04:23 PM) I saw the 15 day ankle s*** this morning and was shocked. This makes way more sense. Ptatc- paging Dr. ptatc Sorry, been out of town visiting colleges with my daughter. Its never good having to do surgery for soft tissue injuries. One doctor I worked with described it as tying two pieces of spaghetti together. It doesn't bode well for a player who relies on speed for his game. He'll be ready for spring training but it's anyone's guess as to how well he'll be able to run and stay healthy again.

QUOTE (Baron @ Jul 31, 2016 -> 04:47 PM) They are probably perfectly fine with that. They get to bring those prospects up next year and we get to wallow at the .500 line waiting for Sale's contract to expire. The issue is that eventually they will need to acquire starting pitching somehow. Sale would be better and more affordable than any other option. Just depends on the risk-reward of the lesser options.

QUOTE (Baron @ Jul 31, 2016 -> 04:47 PM) They are probably perfectly fine with that. They get to bring those prospects up next year and we get to wallow at the .500 line waiting for Sale's contract to expire. The issue is that eventually they will need to acquire starting pitching somehow. Sale would be better and more affordable than any other option. Just depends on the risk-reward of the lesser options.