Lip Man 1

I think there is some truth to that. But as I wrote I don't think he understands yet calling MLB as opposed to G-League, Slamball or NBA Summer League. Different type athletes, different skill sets, different rhythms to the sport and most importantly a totally different audience. He's not going anywhere short of new ownership so I hope next year is better, he's difficult to listen to.

If the Sox are willing to actually help pay for it that would alleviate a lot of those who are against it (including myself) but until JR holds a press conference and publicly says this, I'm not betting my life on it. Regarding the team next year DVS of the Sun-Times as part of a story a few days ago said the feeling is the Sox will not be very active in the free agent market (naturally...the money will NOT be spent! LOL) Under current ownership the bolded part is exactly correct, that's the only hope and hope is not a recipe for success.

Luis Alvarado, Mike Andrews, Tom Bradley, Tom Egan, Jay Johnstone, Pat Kelly, Rick Reichardt, Vicente Rome and Ed Stroud weren't prospects. They were competent Major league players who helped the Sox go from 56 wins (1970) to 79 (1971) in a single season, one of the biggest single season turnarounds in MLB history. To say nothing then about getting Dick Allen and Stan Bahnsen the following season. It wasn't Hemond's or Tanner's fault Allyn's outside business interests went bust and the franchise almost couldn't meet payroll (and for all the good Veeck did, financially he wasn't any better) or that Stu Holcomb who had no business being in a MLB front office ordered Hemond to release, not trade, release any player who wouldn't agree to his initial contract offer. July 27, 1973 - Sox vice president Stu Holcomb ‘retired’ under pressure after his hard-line approach on salaries destroyed the 1973 White Sox. When players wouldn’t come to terms with his initial offer, Holcomb ordered, then player personnel director Roland Hemond, to release them. Not try to compromise with them or try to trade them to get something back... but release them. The Sox gave away Jay Johnstone, Ed Spiezio, Mike Andrews and Rick Reichardt. When Holcomb ordered Hemond to release 21-game winner Stan Bahnsen, Hemond and manager Chuck Tanner went to owner John Allyn. Hemond and Tanner threatened to quit if something wasn’t done. Allyn sided with the duo and Holcomb was history bringing some stability to the front office although the damage was already done. When the Sox suffered injury after injury that year, using the disabled list 38 times, there was little depth to try to fill the gaping holes. They’d end the season in fifth place at 77-85 after leading the division in late May.

They already did that earlier this season at 14 setting the franchise record if I recall correctly.

19 times. That's how many times the Sox took a lead into the 7th inning or later...and lost the game. 19 They go winless for the season in Kansas City. Seven straight losses. I'll have to look to see if the Sox have ever had multiple double-digit losing streaks in a single season.

The biggest thing the Sox had going for them was that John Allyn had the guts to see things were off the rails, fired basically everyone and brought in Roland Hemond and Chuck Tanner. Things got better in a hurry. That's not going to happen with JR so keeping Crochet and Robert do nothing to really move the needle to being a competent, winning franchise again. So until new ownership arrives, keep getting prospects and hope. That's all you've got right now.

Glasnow starting Wednesday, Kershaw starting Thursday for the Dodgers. We'll see how they do and how it may impact their trade interest.

I'm guessing it is because the personal relationship between Brooks and Jason became toxic over time and Brooks wanted to let Jason know who was boss.

Let's go winless in Kansas City for the season! Don't stop now boys!

You mean when new ownership arrives. Inquiring minds want to know...do they have another double digit losing streak in them???????????????

The Dodgers are a lock for the playoffs this year. They aren't a "contender" you can pencil them in for the N.L. playoffs. They have the opportunity to get a person who could be an ace pitcher for several seasons including this year and have him ready to go when it counts the most...this season...come October. They can monitor his work load until then without risking anything as far as making the post season. They have that much flexibility. Dodger fans will understand that situation easily, It is strange that others don't seem to grasp that concept.

The other reason the owners agreed to do it back in 94-95 was to try to move negotiations forward towards a settlement on their terms. Needless to say the result they got wasn't what they wanted.

If for no other reason to give credence when they claim they are "losing" money which most fans on the surface simply do not believe. But you don't have to worry, after the Stanford economist destroyed that claim in 94-95, owners vowed they'd never do it again. The Braves are the only exception because they are a publicly owned company and have to do so.

That also was brought up in The Lords of the Realm. Owners are so dishonest they'll even attempt to screw each other over after supposedly agreeing on something.

Second half begins and so does more losing.

The book The Lords of the Realm by John Helyar goes into detail on some of the ways teams were hiding income when MLB agreed (for the only time) to let an independent accountant examine their books. He was from Stanford. The accountant exploded Bud Selig's myth that 18 teams were losing money at the time of the 1994-95 labor impasse. MLB vowed they'd never open their books again (and they haven't) One example Helyar went into was the Braves under Ted Turner. Instead of putting up the broadcast rights for the club on the open market in Atlanta, he simply gave them to his own WTBS at a reduced rate. Then claimed that the Braves weren't bringing in as much revenue as they should have and were "losing" money in this area. Smart people can make numbers say just about anything you want them to when they are done with all the manipulations.

He has an unbelievable baseball memorabilia collection in his home.

Agreed but that income still goes to him. That's why it is so tricky to get a real accurate read on what a team does or does not make. There are so many ancillary companies and areas to stash revenue.

JR doesn't like to pay people not to work and as others have stated he's the designated scape-goat at the end of the year.

Until any team allows an independent accountant to examine their books this is all speculation but Manfred has said MLB is now at least a 10 Billion dollar a year business. There are more revenue streams both domestically and internationally for MLB than ever before. And in the Sox case it is not just revenue from merchandise, parking, concessions and advertising it is the very team-friendly deal they have on the stadium with the ISSA.

That's fine if the two different broadcasts i.e. radio/TV are in synch. Often times they aren't.

To Scott Merkin: “We want to develop to win. We want to develop winners. And yes, you gotta develop players fundamentally. But most of the time, these guys come up here fundamentally sound."--Pedro Grifol. WHAT????????????? Is he watching the same things we've been seeing for years in this organization?

I asked around and I don't know if this is the complete story. I was told Jeff texted Schriffin at a number he thought was his but later learned it was the wrong number. It was a Sox office number. The Sox alerted Jeff and he reached out to John to apologize and to set the record straight for a story that was about to be published. Schriffin never responded. That's all I know.

? This may be one of the most asinine statements I've ever read in my life. I don't "claim" to announce games, I've broadcast games for 40 years on both TV and radio. This past May for example I broadcast the Big Sky softball championships on ESPN+. 11 games in four days. I've broadcast high school sports, college sports and semi-pro baseball in Kentucky, Louisiana and Idaho. Oh I was also in TV sports anchoring for 14 years at three different stations. I'd be happy to give you a complete list of where I worked and who I broadcast for. I'm 68, there's no way in hell I would have even applied at that age, you must be insane. Bottom line, the broadcast on the TV is poor. Period. End of story. Full stop. Yes it would have been easier to listen to if the Sox were winning but that doesn't change the fact it is poor. And I guarantee you it would STILL be talked about. The "hometown" broadcast is one of the few ways fans connect to the team and organization. It is a damn important connection. You want the best possible person representing your organization in this fashion. Schriffen right now isn't it. He may get better we'll see how he improves next year but I think he'd be better off dropping the "attitude" that he's trying to bring to the broadcast. He shouldn't have a chip on his shoulder, he's not down on the field and frankly he gets paid the same if they win or lose. Just be professional, that's all.

There is a lot of truth in the bolded part but I think it is mitigated somewhat with the Sox given the "loyalty" factor by JR and the fact that it is a lot easier to let pride in doing a job well, slip, if you are making a six figure salary. Human nature.