Two-Gun Pete

I'd thought that this was the case with both the hire, and with Cease. I also wondered if the cavalcade of failures to develop Rodon, then Lopez, and now Cease were some of the reasons for Cooper no longer being here. In any case, I'd prefer for Cease to start 2021 in Charlotte/Schaumburg, learning to use his curveball again, and getting his shitty bb/9 below ~3 or so.

Farrell's not necessarily a bad thought. I might actually prefer him to TLR or Hinch. However, specific to this club, I'd rather have a former catcher as the next manager. Not so much because of the adage of "catchers make the best managers," but rather, that the SOX are about to lose a strong performer at the position. Also, there have been some questions about Grandal's performances, from the game calling angle, as well as his ability to mesh with Giolito. Lastly, we're likely to see either Collins or Yermin as a backup, and I think it could be profitable to give them every chance to succeed. I could see Bochy or Alomar as being beneficial to the SOX in this regard as manager.

Well, when someone show you who they are through their actions, you should believe them. There hasn't been anything of a comparative and competitive process since Ozzie was hired 17 years ago. The last time there was a need for a manager while the team was thought to be competitive, it was a one man, three question "search " that included ONLY Ventura. I certainly hope youre correct that there will be more than a 2 man search. But so far, we've heard nothing to that effect.

Oh, you're probably correct in terms of the number of candidates they've limited themselves to this time around. To me, thats the other disappointing aspect of this "search." While both of the horses have their virtues, they also have their faults that can't be ignored. I think there are other candidates that also have their virtues, that this FO are ignoring. And this could be to the team's detriment/to the advantage of their competitors. Were they to interview Bochy, Alomar, Quatraro, TLR, and Hinch, then hire Hinch or TLR, at least we could be satiated in that they did their due diligence. By contrast, this seems less like a proper search, and more like a waiting game for the naming press conference.

Well, if they've been thinking about replacing RR for awhile, its actually been longer than that. And since there are other orgs looking for managers, it behooves them to start the process [if there actually is one] sooner rather than later. And one would anticipate that a competent front office would have maintained a list of potential candidates, IF a change ever had to be made, or if your extant manager quit on you, for whatever reason. Yes, I get it: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. But up to this point, the [snicker] "work" they've put into this search has been haphazard, half-baked, and transparently stoopid.

You also see no indication that they have deviated whatsoever from the majority of the past 20 or so years, in terms of managerial/coaching searches. RH/KW/JR could have stated that they will look at several candidates, but they didn't. Instead, the only step they are noted to take hereto fore is to leak the name TLR to Nightingale, and to ask LAAAAA for permission to talk to him. That said, I think it would be front office malpractice [again] to not include candidates that can be interviewed NOW, as well as those who are unavailable until later. What if the guy you THOUGHT was the right candidate isn't available until later, and when you DO interview him, he comes off as an imbecile, or fvkcwad, or a Darryl Boston-style scumbag? Meanwhile OTHER, smarter orgs could hire your alternatives before you can circle back. They could EASILY interview [off the top of my head]: TLR, Alomar, Washington, and Bochy NOW. THEN, if they really had a hardon to hire a cheat, they can interview Hinch and Cora later; they could also interview coaches that are currently in the playoffs as well at a later period. But the overarching question is: "Why aren't they talking to candidates, and why are they not talking to multiple candidates, NOW?" This honestly feels like the same old story we've seen over and over again, and I feel like we've seen this stupid movie over and over again with respect to managerial hires. Its honestly lazy and stupid, and has lead to inferior outcomes and inferior choices in their hires more often than not.

I think the part that bothers me about this so-called "search" is that they're not actually ya know, doing a "search." Just as in the recent past, it feels like they're just skipping over the "search" part, and the "interview" part, and just want to go directly to the "naming a guy manager" part. I think back to Ventura: Was there actually an attempt to query the guy, so as to see what he was all about, or see if he was interested, or if he actually had any ideas? DId they consider any other candidates? [I honestly don't remember if they did.] Or with Renteria: Was there any attempt to query him, or did they just offer him the job? Were they any other candidates? And, I don't actually see them announcing any candidates, beyond the moronic leak of TLR. Do they plan to actually have a process and interview candidates, or will they do their usual stupid process of just "naming a guy?" See, a thoughtful interviewing process can help you nail down the right candidate, to identify potential coaches outside the org, to gain insight into how OTHER orgs operate, and to gain insight into how other orgs view the White Sox's operations. IMO, it isn't enough that a candidate worked for a successful organization. He could have been just lucky, or a cheat, or have been carried across the finish line by superior talent. You have to find the fit, the mix of abilities, the proper philosophies, and the right acumen to get the job done. And I can't think of another way to do this, OTHER than a detailed, comparative process that involves more than one candidate. Especially when there isn't ONE prospective candidate that is head and shoulders above the rest; I think that all of the names have both virtues and flaws on their resumes. The last time I recall the SOX actually doing a proper "search, then interviewS, then hire" process was all the way back when it was supposed to be Cito Gaston in late 2003. Just by interviewing more than one guy, they ended up hiring the correct person for the job. So, I could actually be somewhat more OK with TLR or cheater Hinch, IF they sought out more than one candidate, interviewed them, and then selected the right guy. But, ya know, that actually takes thought and effort, and who knows if JR/KW/RH will bother?

This speaks more to the quality of their FO than to the quality of Hinch. And again, in game decisions are easy to make when Altuve knows what pitch is coming in his next PA. That aside, I wonder if Bochy would be willing to come, and take Jireshele (sp?) as his bench coach. I think im warming to the idea of experience + up and comer as the manager/bench coach pairing.

To that I state that Robin Ventura had shitty rosters, and his win % was .463. I mean, Ventura had geniuses in his FO giving him James Shields and other luminaries. And if Hinch was good at scouting, perhaps he can return to that. But his record as a manager has been in part obtained through fraud.

Yes, and every decision made was made with the foreknowledge that his offenses were likely to have a leg up on the opposition. That makes pinch hitting, pitching changes, and other tactical decisions laughably easy. Kinda like playing checkers against a 7 year old in the "slow group," while you're an adult with decades of experience. IOW, you already know what's coming, and you can easily defeat the child at the game. In the same way, Hinch knew he had an advantage that others did not. So, no, I don't accept the notion that he was a tactical genius. He had a fraudulently-obtained advantage.

Shyte, that makes Hinch/Cora look worse, IMO. Setting aside the morality issues, the fact that the cubs-centric local media will feast upon a Hinch hiring, and the fact that stoopid out of town media types will re-play the black sox tropes, I simply don't know if Hinch is good at managing or not because of the cheating and fraud. For this reason, I'd rather steer clear of him and Cora. I'd interview Alomar, Washington, Bochy, and others before I'd give Hinch/Cora a second thought. YMMV.

Perhaps. But how do we know his teams would have been good without the cheating? We DO know that Hinch has a sh!tty .420 win % without cheating.

Meh, with Washington, at least we can say that he's reasonably good at coaching/managing, because [AFAIK] his outcomes were not obtained through fraudulent means. He also helped Semien improve enough at defense [which this org couldn't], so as to help Semien achieve a 7 fWAR season. With Cora/Hinch, how do we know if they are any good at managing? Their good results were at least in part due to fraud. Maybe they are good, and maybe they aren't. Maybe they're lucky. Who knows?

How do we know this to be the truth? Without cheating, his teams sucked ass. With cheating, his teams did well. How can you trust that he has bona fide abilities as a manager? Again, he had an anemic .420 winning % without cheating. Even Robin Fvkcing Ventura had a .463 winning % as a manager.

But wait, I thought it was "Cora was the ringleader in all of this, while Hinch was a weak and impotent bystander." Wouldn't that mean that CORA was the one who was trying so hard to win that he cheated, while Hinch was too lazy to bother to cheat?

I don't get why Hinch's cavalcade of cheating, and/or ignoring it, and/or being to weak or too stupid to stop it, THEN talking shyte about the yankmees when his teams were caught is considered just a "single mistake," whereas Ozzie's leaving the team means he should forever be cancelled from managing? Not that I want either guy, but IF Hinch is a candidate, then why is Ozzie not ALSO a candidate? With respect to Hinch, I think there is just too much risk to consider hiring him. A short summary of him as a manager would be: Without cheating, his teams sucked and he got fired. WIth cheating, his teams won and he got suspended. How do we know if he's actually a good manager, if all of his supposedly "good results" were directly attributable to cheating? How do we know he's not the Jose Altuve of Managing? [Good while cheating, sh!tty without cheating.] What else did they do that artificially enhanced their outcomes? And this sets aside the very real idea that leadership should come with integrity. I simply don't know if I would want to risk my job if I were Hahn, on a guy who we do not know if he is good at managing, or just a simple cheat. I don't know if I were JR, if I'd want to risk my [perhaps] final few years on Earth watching a manager who may or may not be good. And I don't know if I would want to risk this competitive window/the finite primes of Giolito/Moncada/Robert, et. al, trying to figure out if Hinch is good, or simply a good cheater. I would just rather go a different direction, because there is uncertainty with Hinch, his abilities, and his degree of personal and professional integrity, IMO. And where there is uncertainty, there is unnecessary risk. YMMV.

Actually, it wasnt: What Hahn said ..."The ideal candidate will be someone who has experience in a championship organization in recent years," Hahn said, per USA TODAY's Bob Nightengale." That could mean experience as a player, a coach, a manager, a front office person, a mascot, who knows? it does include two candidates who have no winning bona fides without cheating. But it could also include others as well.

So, there's this: Hinch talking shyte while he knew they were cheating Hinch and his supporters claim it was just "A" mistake, but he knew about the cheating, and was either: 1. Too weak, 2. Complicit, 3. Too stupid to stop it. All that aside, what proof is there that he or Cora are any good at managing? I mean, without the benefit of rampant cheating? Also if years and years of being too weak, too complicit, or too stupid to stop the cheating is just "A" mistake, is Ozzie leaving the SOX the way he did also just "A" mistake? Could Ozzie just say "sorry," and all is forgiven?

As I read Hahn's comments, I think it also could include Alomar as well. At least, I would hope so.

Look, you previously posted "no one would touch him," which actually isn't true, because Atlanta did want him. And that's neither here nor there. Find us another RF candidate that provides some or all of the 6 factual points I'd mentioned, if you're so adamantly against Puig. I'm honestly open-minded about potential signees, and agnostic about Puig at the end of the day. But if it'll be another RFer, I also want to have enough SP depth, so that RR doesn't have to do much BP shuffling every 2 games out of 5, because Cease and Lopez are walking the bags full every one of their starts.

Dude, you're a one-note symphony. Almost all of your posts since you joined a few weeks ago have been variations of, "please, please, please let's get Conforto, because he's a golden god!" Fine, I'll play along. But after this, feel free to post about anything else, if you're actually a White Sox fan, and not a Conforto family member.: 1. You'd have to assume that the Mets, with their new owner, and all his money won't want to compete. 2. You'd have to assume that the Mets, who drafted the man, will be willing to let him go. Do we know if either are true? I'd actually read the opposite: That the Mets' new ownership wants to compete, and that includes keeping Conforto. Once you get past that, what's the acquisition cost/FUTURE opportunity cost losses? You've suggested Cease-for-Conforto ad nauseum. But, given his ties to the org, the new ownership, and the quality of his play, I would expect it to be Cease ++ for Conforto. In other words, you'd be depreciating future trade assets for future acquisitions to get one guy. Once you get past that, what will it take to retain him? Take it or leave it, but Spotrac has his market value as $25.4MM/year, or $178MM/7 years. Whether or not this is accurate, you look up at the top of the page, and recognize that his agent is Scott Boras. Which means he probably isn't coming at a discount, and Boras will make every attempt to get SOMEONE to pay every last nickel in market value to Conforto. Even if Spotrac's assessment isn't true, the owner, Jerry Reinsdorf, already complained about financial losses while others were losing their jobs, businesses, or their lives. He also complained about 2021 in that same article. [Maybe you didn't know that, as a non-White Sox fan, I dunno.] Long story short, there will be some budgetary constraints that this org will observe, going forward. Finding a spare $25.4MM, while trying to add SP depth, retain or sign a closer, and offer Lucas Giolito an extension is a quixotic fool's errand. We look forward to all your non-Conforto-related posts during your tenure here. Or, for you to address the above. Its totally up to you.

That wasn't what you argued. You argued, "NO one in all of baseball was willing to touch Puig last year, including every single general manager that people drool over." I think based on what The Athletic, and Forbes, and Atlanta Business Chronicle, and others had reported, that your statement absolutely was not true. So, if you don't like Puig [which certainly, many don't], then suggest another potential addition that also provides some or most of the 6 factual points I mentioned above. I don't think Puig is a star, but I also don't think he's an arch-criminal. I think he provides potential surplus value relative to his contract, plus the freedom to make other additions in this offseason/next trade deadline/next offseason, without much in terms of acquisition cost.

Is that actually true? The Athletic reported that Puig was going to be signed by Atlanta, but he tested positive for COVID. Regardless, if you're so adamantly against Puig, find us another actual RFer: 1. with a career wrc+ vs RHP of 130 [Better than Abreu, Grandal, Encarnacion, Mazara, as well as Brantley and Pederson], AND 2. mostly- positive DRS at RF, AND 3. not horribly injury-prone, AND 4. not ancient/whose career is on fumes due to Father Time taking away his abilities, AND 5. at a salary price point that will also enable this team to add enough SP depth to push Cease [and his horrifying BB/9 of 5.25] down to Charlotte, AND 6. not cost us trade assets for future acquisitions?

Don't "both sides" this one. You may not "like" MSNBC, given your politics. But they do not try to pose as "news," and then spend 18 out of 24 hours broadcasting lies/propaganda. At a minimum, MSNBC does make an attempt to be news first, and then opinion second, whether you like their opinions or not. To the bolded, I wholeheartedly agree. We need information, and the truth. For us to beat back COVID, and for us to get the economy going [so greg can get his haircuts, and we can all go to the ballpark], we need this, so that we can choose appropriately as a society. We don't need shitgibbons on a sh!tty network to incite stupidity and sedition, all in the name of giving this president the jollies. The problem nowadays is that most people get the same types of stories re-fed to them over and over again on social media, like pigs getting refed the leftovers from Las Vegas buffets. Then, they take their political leaning to their cable news choices, and try to find reverification on fux or OAN or whatever network, rather than being open to other and opposite viewpoints. [Hell, I catch that same tendency in myself whenever I watch too much TV.]

I said this last offseason, and I'll say this now: Yasiel Puig. He's had a wrc+ of 130 vs. RHP over the course of his career. [Yes, go ahead and check his career splits.] He's had a positive DRS in most seasons, which suggests that he's an adequate fielder. His acquisition cost won't include squandering the dwindling supply of tradeable assets, or surrendering compensatory picks. His salary demands aren't going to prevent adding other pieces in this offseason, at 2021's trade deadline, at next season's offseason, or 2022's trade deadline. He's only going to be 30, which means he should have enough tread on the tire to allow Colas or Cespedes or Adolfo or other youngsters to arrive here. He has been supported by both Abreu and Grandal; at 30 years old, he's likely to be more mature than he was as a younger man. He has been active in his community through his charitable foundation, moreso than most players. He's played in this division, and should now have some familiarity with the ballparks in it. He has players in this roster with whom he has familiarity, and the manager, if he has a strength, is to keep a clubhouse together. He likely has been humbled by being left out this season, and is highly likely to be hungry to prove himself; a contract with the proper incentives/disincentives can easily keep him in line, for those of you who are pearl-clutching pants-wetters. I don't think he'll ever be the 5.5 fWAR stud we thought he was a few years ago. But, I think his fWAR floor is likely ~1.5 fWAR, with a ceiling of perhaps ~3fWAR. BUT, he should come at a price point that will be less than Mazara in arb, AND at a point that won't kill the budget. As part of an overall strategy to compete in 2021 through 2024, while not squandering dwindling resources of trade assets or salary structure space, go sign him for a reasonable contract. I'm interested in having multiple opportunities to win, which means trying to add talent that may provide surplus value [i.e. a player who might outperform his contract]. I'm not interested in this club blowing their entire prospect wad, or their entire salary structure in ONE OFFSEASON, which could prevent future additions over the course of this competitive window. IOW, I don't care about "winning the offseason" by adding your wet dream in trade or FA this offseason. YMMV.