AJ Hinch: does it matter to you that he cheated?

[35thstreetswarm]

52 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

To be fair, Hinch was immediately rewarded for his cheating... he just eventually paid for it.

He was richly rewarded for his cheating with a World Series trophy that he didn't have to give back.  His "punishment" was sitting at home like the rest of us for a three-month quasi-season during a pandemic.  He's apparently about to be rewarded with a rich contract a few months later.  Say what you want, but if you're an aspiring cheater, you can look to the AJ Hinch story as positively inspirational.  

Edited October 13, 2020 by 35thstreetswarm

[Dick Allen]

I'm bothered but it won't make me protest and boycott White Sox baseball. I do think it's a pretty big managerial characteristic flaw he had, and I also don't think he is the reason they won 100 games a year, but if he can run a bullpen, we will be better off.

[maloney.adam]

Mike Fiers was the whistleblower in the cheating scandal with the Astros. We faced Mike Fiers in the elimination game. Now AJ Hinch is a candidate for the Sox managerial position. Lmao ?

Edited October 13, 2020 by maloney.adam

[chetkincaid]

9 minutes ago, maloney.adam said:

Mike Fiers was the whistleblower in the cheating scandal with the Astros. We faced Mike Fiers in the elimination game. Now AJ Hinch is a candidate for the Sox managerial position. Lmao ?

I want nothing to do with ANY of this. 

[maloney.adam]

1 hour ago, chetkincaid said:

I want nothing to do with ANY of this. 

I honestly think it’s going to come down to the interview process. I would have to imagine there’s going to be some questions about the game below.

 

Edited October 13, 2020 by maloney.adam

[joejoesox]

17 hours ago, Kyyle23 said:

I mean, it just goes to show that people fuck up bigtime and fans forget.   If Hinch were hired I wouldn't necessarily be proud, but at the same time Hinch has done pretty well with up and coming teams and I don't think all of that success was directly related to the cheating.

That's the thing though, if sentence starts with "cheated", any sort of wishy washy self-convincing argument doesn't really matter, as cheating is supposed to be the one rule, the one unsteppable line that cannot be crossed, according to people who have a say in the matter anyway. Pete Rose has a lifetime ban from baseball, and you could argue what the astros did was worse

This is a thought exercise, and even though I would still follow the Sox religiously, I would also know that I'm being hypocritical.  Is cheating that bad at the end of the day?  Should we hold people accountable more like Pete Rose or more like Hinch/Cora?

Edited October 13, 2020 by joesaiditstrue

[southsider2k5]

Just now, joesaiditstrue said:

That's the thing though, if sentence starts with "cheated", any sort of wishy washy self-convincing argument doesn't really matter, as fans cheating is supposed to be the one rule, the one unsteppable line that cannot be crossed, according to people who have a say in the matter anyway. Pete Rose has a lifetime ban from baseball, and you could argue what the astros did was worse

This is a thought exercise, and even though I would still follow the Sox religiously, I would also know that I'm being hypocritical.  Is cheating that bad at the end of the day?  Should we hold people accountable more like Pete Rose or more like Hinch/Cora?

I am going to parse this and first state that you are 100% wrong in your assessment here.

Cheating has always been a part of baseball, even when there are rules against it.  Pine tar, spit balls, sign stealing, steroids, speed, pitch tipping pitch framing, etc.  When caught people pay their price, and then move on.  Cheating to win has always been a part of baseball culture, and while penalized, it is something that has never, and will never go away.  The argument has always been how much "cheating" is OK, how much cheating is going to get you in trouble, and how much cheating will get you in a LOT of trouble.

Pete Rose didn't get banned for cheating.  He got banned for betting on baseball.  THIS has always been the thing to get you a lifetime ban.  This goes back to the Black Sox.  Playing to LOSE will also get you the ban treatment.  Neither of those things happened here.  The closest thing Pete Rose did was to tip off the professional gambling world to when he WASN'T willing to bet on his own team.  But what he did was ALWAYS known to be a bannable offense.  He also followed up his stupidity by flat out lying about it, and being proven a liar even when MLB seemed to be giving him an opening to get out of his mistakes.  He might not have gotten banned if he had fessed up when he got this chance.

Now we can definitely sit and argue all day about how bad Hinch's role was in all of this, if his punishment was appropriate and if the Sox should touch him as a manager.  But what happened with Pete Rose is not an equitable item to what Hinch did.

[Dick Allen]

I get the people that want this guy. I get the people who don't want the Sox to even consider him. The only people I don't get are those that think what happened with him doesn't matter at all. It should matter some, maybe not enough to say he shouldn't be a manager, but at least enough for you to weigh it for a little bit.

[Kyyle23]

11 minutes ago, joesaiditstrue said:

That's the thing though, if sentence starts with "cheated", any sort of wishy washy self-convincing argument doesn't really matter, as cheating is supposed to be the one rule, the one unsteppable line that cannot be crossed, according to people who have a say in the matter anyway. Pete Rose has a lifetime ban from baseball, and you could argue what the astros did was worse

This is a thought exercise, and even though I would still follow the Sox religiously, I would also know that I'm being hypocritical.  Is cheating that bad at the end of the day?  Should we hold people accountable more like Pete Rose or more like Hinch/Cora?

Wait a second, how can you argue it's worse?  Hinch and then Astros by all accounts cheated to win.  Nothing guaranteed of course, players still have to play and make contact etc.

rose bet on his own teams games(dont tell me he didn't),he could bet on a win or a loss and if he was betting on losses, he could absolutely steer his team towards that result.  
 

both suck, but at least one of these offenses was designed in order to give the team the best chance to win instead of put money in one mans pocket 

[fathom]

7 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

I get the people that want this guy. I get the people who don't want the Sox to even consider him. The only people I don't get are those that think what happened with him doesn't matter at all. It should matter some, maybe not enough to say he shouldn't be a manager, but at least enough for you to weigh it for a little bit.

I would prefer not to hire Hinch or Cora, just like I would have preferred the Sox didn’t sign Melky or Grandal. If the Sox truly feel that Hinch is the best fit for this team though, then I will get on board.

[MeanJoeCrede]

Bottom line, Bauer and pitching in general will have a much more significant impact on the White Sox ability to win titles moving forward than Hinch or any other manager ever will. I want Bauer more than I want Hinch. Hiring Hinch means no Bauer, and likely means much less appealing and much more Same Old White Sox options for the rotation "upgrades".

[Kyyle23]

1 minute ago, MeanJoeCrede said:

Bottom line, Bauer and pitching in general will have a much more significant impact on the White Sox ability to win titles moving forward than Hinch or any other manager ever will. I want Bauer more than I want Hinch. Hiring Hinch means no Bauer, and likely means much less appealing and much more Same Old White Sox options for the rotation "upgrades".

I honestly don't know how hiring Hinch, someone with actual championship experience which is way different than anything the Sox have ever done, leads you to believe that it will end up being same old same old.

 

simply firing RR and Cooper should show you immediately that this is not the same and should not be judged as the same as anything this regime has ever done.

[southsider2k5]

Just now, Kyyle23 said:

I honestly don't know how hiring Hinch, someone with actual championship experience which is way different than anything the Sox have ever done, leads you to believe that it will end up being same old same old.

 

simply firing RR and Cooper should show you immediately that this is not the same and should not be judged as the same as anything this regime has ever done.

Yeah, as easy as it is to slip back to the safety net of the "same old White Sox" memes, the reality is since the day we traded Chris Sale to Boston, things have been completely different.  I don't know if it was a shifting of the guard from the KW way to the RH way, or all of the new people that have been brought into the organization of the last 5 years, but things are not the same.  How many "The Sox will never"'s have we destroyed in the last few years? 

[SonofaRoache]

21 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

I get the people that want this guy. I get the people who don't want the Sox to even consider him. The only people I don't get are those that think what happened with him doesn't matter at all. It should matter some, maybe not enough to say he shouldn't be a manager, but at least enough for you to weigh it for a little bit.

It does matter, but I think we can all agree that what he did was wrong. But we signed 3 cheaters last offseason alone. And yes I think DK knew about what was going on and probably encouraged it as the leader of that team. I also think Yasmani and EE cheated. 

This being said, Hinch deserves and will get a shot to manage again. Cheating doesn't stop people from playing, it stops them from going to the HOF. Hinch would be a distraction for a few weeks next season then the story will get stale until we play Houston the first few times and the Dodgers the first time. I don't believe signing him would lack integrity in the least bit. I don't like what he did, but cheating is a part of baseball. 

[MeanJoeCrede]

2 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

I honestly don't know how hiring Hinch, someone with actual championship experience which is way different than anything the Sox have ever done, leads you to believe that it will end up being same old same old.

 

simply firing RR and Cooper should show you immediately that this is not the same and should not be judged as the same as anything this regime has ever done.

My point was that Hinch= no Bauer

No Bauer= same old white sox upgrades to the pitching staff, as in bounce back candidates, middle market, not top of market

 

[SonofaRoache]

9 minutes ago, MeanJoeCrede said:

Bottom line, Bauer and pitching in general will have a much more significant impact on the White Sox ability to win titles moving forward than Hinch or any other manager ever will. I want Bauer more than I want Hinch. Hiring Hinch means no Bauer, and likely means much less appealing and much more Same Old White Sox options for the rotation "upgrades".

Maybe next year but not moving forward. Bauer will probably only get a one year deal from us. Hinch plus Stroman for 4 years is worth more than a lesser manager plus Bauer. Especially if said manager will coach you out of the playoffs. Also signing Hinch may help you get Springer. 

[bmags]

2 minutes ago, MeanJoeCrede said:

My point was that Hinch= no Bauer

No Bauer= same old white sox upgrades to the pitching staff, as in bounce back candidates, middle market, not top of market

 

I think you should speak with less certainty here

[SonofaRoache]

3 minutes ago, MeanJoeCrede said:

My point was that Hinch= no Bauer

No Bauer= same old white sox upgrades to the pitching staff, as in bounce back candidates, middle market, not top of market

 

Yeah but we won't be signing Bauer long term anyway at top dollar. He would get a one year deal to give us time to sort out Kopech, Cease, Dunning, and Stiever. 

[MeanJoeCrede]

4 minutes ago, bmags said:

I think you should speak with less certainty here

I'm  certain that Hinch = No Bauer

I'm  also certain that Bauer is the only top of market free agent pitcher available.

I guess I am not certain that a trade could net the Sox a 1 or 2 starter, if that helps? 

[SonofaRoache]

1 minute ago, MeanJoeCrede said:

I'm  certain that Hinch = No Bauer

I'm  also certain that Bauer is the only top of market free agent pitcher available.

I guess I am not certain that a trade could net the Sox a 1 or 2 starter, if that helps? 

Yes, but is one year of Bauer worth more than 5 years of Hinch and a quality number 2 or 3 arm? And a better shot at getting Springer?  I don't think so personally. 

[MeanJoeCrede]

Just now, SonofaRoache said:

Yes, but is one year of Bauer worth more than 5 years of Hinch and a quality number 2 or 3 arm? And a better shot at getting Springer?  I don't think so personally. 

A quality 2 or 3 arm is something Sox can get with or without Hinch. A quality 1 or maybe 2 is what we need. Hiring Hinch takes at least 1 option off the table and who knows how many others won't want to play for him. Still don't think Sox pay for Springer regardless of who the manager is, and having an in with Springer isn't as important as upgrading the top of the Sox rotation.

[Quin]

30 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Yeah, as easy as it is to slip back to the safety net of the "same old White Sox" memes, the reality is since the day we traded Chris Sale to Boston, things have been completely different.  I don't know if it was a shifting of the guard from the KW way to the RH way, or all of the new people that have been brought into the organization of the last 5 years, but things are not the same.  How many "The Sox will never"'s have we destroyed in the last few years? 

Honestly, since they drafted Rodon and signed Abreu.

[jamesdiego]

Ozzie didn’t just quit on the team the last two days.  That guy was creating drama in the media most of that year.  It was an absolute shit show of a managerial job that year with his out of control ego running rampant needing to create drama all the time.  
 

I think all teams (besides the Marlins) looked at that season and said “no thanks” for us.  
 

Albert Belle had his cork bat incident against us of all teams.  And then we signed him to a big contract.   Did any of the old timers who have a problem with Hinch also had a problem with Belle with his corked bat?

 

When the Astros cheating happened at the time I would definitely have said F those guys and would have never wanted any of them to be with the organization   But when Springers name had popped up for free agent possibilities I didn’t bat an eye   I definitely would want him   
 

Do people who don’t want Hinch at all costs also absolutely don’t want Springer?  
 

As others said in a perfect world we would hire a guy with an unblemished record   But there’s many imperfect people in this world.   And many have done far worse offenses.

I have a far bigger issue with the Sox having Daryl Boston as a coach after reading that long article last year giving details on a rape he was accused of in the 90’s.  There was no trial but hearing her story had me pretty convinced, and was gut wrenching learning her end.  

 

[Buehrle5687]

I'm not totally against Hinch, but every manager/potential manager should be frothing at the mouth for this job.  Is Hinch really the best option?  Over Bochy if we could get him? 

[Orlando]

24 minutes ago, MeanJoeCrede said:

I'm  certain that Hinch = No Bauer

I'm  also certain that Bauer is the only top of market free agent pitcher available.

I guess I am not certain that a trade could net the Sox a 1 or 2 starter, if that helps? 

I'm certain that logic = no Bauer.

Sox have never spent on a pitcher on Bauer's level especially at #1 in the FA market. Hinch or no Hinch, that ain't happening. Also Bauer said he'd even listen to the Astros if they wanted him.