PDA

View Full Version : Brooks Boyer - The reality is our fan base has been hit hard by the economy


Pages : [1] 2

Fenway
12-12-2011, 11:34 AM
Sox's rebuilding plan could challenge promotional efforts
Marketing chief Boyer says he has slogan in mind for 2012

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/ct-spt-1211-white-sox-chicago--20111211,0,1788782.story

Irishsox1
12-12-2011, 12:09 PM
Gee, it's the economy? And all this time I just thought it was Alex Rios.

Lip Man 1
12-12-2011, 12:17 PM
And having "losing" seasons in three out of the last five years has "nothing" to do with it.

Lip

#1swisher
12-12-2011, 12:46 PM
The last paragraph of Mark Gonzales' article, has me wondering, "if any veteran requests a trade, it would behoove him to play to the level anticipated by KW, Sox organization and the fans. Instead of staying in the abyss of mediocrity."

DirtySox
12-12-2011, 12:47 PM
The last paragraph of Mark Gonzales' article, has me wondering, "if any veteran requests a trade, it would behoove him to play to the level anticipated by KW, Sox organization and the fans. Instead of staying in the abyss of mediocrity."

Clearly taking a shot at Peavy. Love it.

slavko
12-12-2011, 12:50 PM
Gee, it's the economy? And all this time I just thought it was Alex Rios.

Cutting to the chase. That's why we pay you.:D:

Jerko
12-12-2011, 02:00 PM
I don't know. IMO, this is just a nice way of saying that the rebuilding is our (the fans') fault for not coming out to the park in droves last season to watch a very unlikeable team.

CubsfansareDRUNK
12-12-2011, 02:02 PM
So our 2012 slogan is "2012 White Sox - Our fan base has been hit hard by the economy"?

thomas35forever
12-12-2011, 02:09 PM
So our 2012 slogan is "2012 White Sox - Our fan base has been hit hard by the economy"?
More like - "No support, no money, no winning".

asindc
12-12-2011, 02:22 PM
I'm wondering if there is any statement a Sox official can make regarding the economic state of the team that will not be even remotely construed as a criticism of fans who do not attend games?

Frater Perdurabo
12-12-2011, 02:39 PM
I'm wondering if there is any statement a Sox official can make regarding the economic state of the team that will not be even remotely construed as a criticism of fans who do not attend games?

I doubt it. Sox fans have been crapped on so much that even honest statements are now regarded with suspicion and distrust.

FielderJones
12-12-2011, 02:42 PM
I'm wondering if there is any statement a Sox official can make regarding the economic state of the team that will not be even remotely construed as a criticism of fans who do not attend games?

Asindc's Law: As a thread discussing White Sox payroll grows longer, the probability that someone will take offense for not attending White Sox games approaches 1.

salty99
12-12-2011, 03:41 PM
2012 Sox - Overpaid veterans and under-performing kids

comiskey2000
12-12-2011, 03:59 PM
Maybe its the minority opinion, but who really cares about the goofy marketing slogan. Go out and win, people will come.

TomBradley72
12-12-2011, 04:29 PM
A good team and/or a well run organization will draw fans in spite of the economy in the nothern midwest- just ask the Twins, Tigers and Brewers.

SI1020
12-12-2011, 04:45 PM
A good team and/or a well run organization will draw fans in spite of the economy in the nothern midwest- just ask the Twins, Tigers and Brewers. Good point. Especially concerning Detroit.

kittle42
12-12-2011, 04:53 PM
Better title:

Brooks Boyer - The White Sox are the only team whose win/loss record somehow seems to be affected by the economy.

TDog
12-12-2011, 05:06 PM
I'm wondering if there is any statement a Sox official can make regarding the economic state of the team that will not be even remotely construed as a criticism of fans who do not attend games?

I am certain there is not.

A. Cavatica
12-12-2011, 07:12 PM
Your 2012 White Sox slogan: "Still in denial".

russ99
12-12-2011, 07:31 PM
Lots to get annoyed with in that piece, I'm sure not going to complain about a ticket price cut.

balke
12-12-2011, 07:59 PM
I agree economy is a factor - but my attendance went down because of Adam Dunn. Terrible idea - and unfortunately the worst case scenario of why happened. So many other options were available.


Now I have to watch Ozzie and MB on the Marlins while waiting for the pinwheels to spin from slow/old kong and Dunn. I love PK... but just feel bad for him now that he's stuck on a rebuilder. Dunn at DH or in the field while having to hear the term "noogie" 10,000 times this year will now make it hard to watch on tv.

TomBradley72
12-12-2011, 08:35 PM
White Sox Excuse #1- Our fans have been hit hard by the economy, suggestion: Please call the Detroit Tigers.

White Sox Excuse #2: The Cubs dominate the market- we can't overcome that, suggestion: Please call the Angels

fusillirob1983
12-12-2011, 08:41 PM
Am I the only one that read this and didn't see the part where Brooks directly or indirectly blamed the fans for the Sox not being good?

Aside from Brooks saying the economy is part of the reason for lowering ticket prices (I wouldn't say he's lying as much as not telling the whole truth), but would anyone expect him to say "the economy and our terrible play is why we lowered prices. We will be worse next year." I'm not really sure what's untrue. We also don't know the question asked of him while Gonzales wrote the article. Personally I don't think it's relevant whether Brooks says why prices are lower or not. We all know the reason and the prices reflect it. I can't really complain.

Gonzales says it's in the veterans' best interest to play up to expectations. Gonzalez is also the one that says decrease of attendance last year and underperforming led to this year's rebuilding. Brooks didn't say either of those things. Neither of those things are untrue.

Maybe I missed something.

spawn
12-12-2011, 09:04 PM
Am I the only one that read this and didn't see the part where Brooks directly or indirectly blamed the fans for the Sox not being good?

Aside from Brooks saying the economy is part of the reason for lowering ticket prices (I wouldn't say he's lying as much as not telling the whole truth), but would anyone expect him to say "the economy and our terrible play is why we lowered prices. We will be worse next year." I'm not really sure what's untrue. We also don't know the question asked of him while Gonzales wrote the article. Personally I don't think it's relevant whether Brooks says why prices are lower or not. We all know the reason and the prices reflect it. I can't really complain.

Gonzales says it's in the veterans' best interest to play up to expectations. Gonzalez is also the one that says decrease of attendance last year and underperforming led to this year's rebuilding. Brooks didn't say either of those things. Neither of those things are untrue.

Maybe I missed something.
No, you didn't miss anything. Your analysis is spot on.

RowanDye
12-12-2011, 09:17 PM
2012 Sox - Overpaid veterans and under-performing kids

Performing
2012 Chicago White Sox
Paid

Harry Potter
12-12-2011, 09:33 PM
Performing

2012 Chicago White Sox

Paid


I love these puzzles!!!

Hitmen77
12-12-2011, 09:47 PM
So our 2012 slogan is "2012 White Sox - Our fan base has been hit hard by the economy"?

More like - "No support, no money, no winning".

2012 Sox - Overpaid veterans and under-performing kids

:rolling:

Fenway
12-12-2011, 10:12 PM
Brooks in a way is saying that we overpriced our product.

The challenge is daunting.

1. Try to keep the season ticket base from collapsing.

2. Get said ticket holders going to the games and not selling on Stub Hub. If you have a glut of tickets in the secondary market - nobody will buy from the ticket office.

For 2 to happen -the team needs to win or at least be fun to watch.

Monday-Thursday games are a problem for many clubs. The formula is usually try to market the weekday games to your in city crowd and then weekends to the outlying areas. It gets easier once school is out but April, May and September are tough tickets to move.

Lip was dead on when he recalled the White Sox never considered the Cubs as a competitor - but as the American League Chicago team.

The problem is the leagues no longer are separate entities, they are all MLB.

soxnut1018
12-12-2011, 10:29 PM
White Sox Baseball: The hardest hitter on our team is the economy.

MARTINMVP
12-12-2011, 11:01 PM
Sox's rebuilding plan could challenge promotional efforts
Marketing chief Boyer says he has slogan in mind for 2012

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/ct-spt-1211-white-sox-chicago--20111211,0,1788782.story

New Slogan?:

We've Got Robin. Now We'll Lay an Egg...

White Sox Pride: Thanks for Nothing

It's Black and White - Last One Out, Turn out the Lights

guillensdisciple
12-12-2011, 11:35 PM
Oh wow shut the **** up- I don't need you making excuses for our lack of performance leading to attendance drops. That's not it- we suck- i figured it out

BainesHOF
12-13-2011, 03:40 AM
I don't care how much the tickets are. I'm not going to be excited about paying to watch a team where guys such as Rios and Pierzynski continually dog it.

Dan H
12-13-2011, 04:16 AM
The economy is a factor - fans won't dig deep into their pockets unless the team is good. They will save their money for something else.

Not since the White Flag Trade has this team lost such credibility with the fans. Major decisions should have been made in May not September. I don't have faith in the organization and that feeling won't change if the economy finally gets better. I hope a clear strategy evolves soon because I don't know what the team is trying to do.

CubsfansareDRUNK
12-13-2011, 10:49 AM
White Sox Baseball: The hardest hitter on our team is the economy.

:rolling::rolling:

kittle42
12-13-2011, 10:59 AM
Not since the White Flag Trade has this team lost such credibility with the fans. Major decisions should have been made in May not September. I don't have faith in the organization and that feeling won't change if the economy finally gets better. I hope a clear strategy evolves soon because I don't know what the team is trying to do.

The organization is a mess and I hate not really looking forward to Sox baseball (not that I'm not looking forward to baseball generally - I am).

GoGoCrede
12-13-2011, 11:11 AM
White Sox Baseball: The hardest hitter on our team is the economy.

:rolling: POTW.

JC456
12-13-2011, 11:12 AM
A good team and/or a well run organization will draw fans in spite of the economy in the nothern midwest- just ask the Twins, Tigers and Brewers.
It is a concept that escapes this team.

doublem23
12-13-2011, 11:14 AM
A good team and/or a well run organization will draw fans in spite of the economy in the nothern midwest- just ask the Twins, Tigers and Brewers.

The Twins, Tigers, and Brewers have won how many combined World Series trophies in the last... 20 years now? The answer to that is zero, right? Zero.

The Sox, in the least 6 years have given their fans more than those three teams have given theres in their last combined 60 seasons. Maybe their fans, on a whole, are just better than Sox fans. :dunno:

JC456
12-13-2011, 11:15 AM
So given what Kenny said, how is the trade of Santos rebuilding or even positioning for rebuilding? Wasn't he under the team's payroll for six years? Isn't he a young talent? Didn't he prove his ability? What?

doublem23
12-13-2011, 11:18 AM
So given what Kenny said, how is the trade of Santos rebuilding or even positioning for rebuilding? Wasn't he under the team's payroll for six years? Isn't he a young talent? Didn't he prove his ability? What?

Well, not really, he'll turn 29 in the middle of next season. Plus, he was blocking one of our few legit prospects.

kittle42
12-13-2011, 11:23 AM
Maybe their fans, on a whole, are just better than Sox fans. :dunno:

It is a distinct possibility.

QueerGirrl
12-13-2011, 11:28 AM
White Sox Baseball: The hardest hitter on our team is the economy.

:roflmao::thumbsup:

The organization is a mess and I hate not really looking forward to Sox baseball (not that I'm not looking forward to baseball generally - I am).

+1

asindc
12-13-2011, 11:33 AM
The thread does not include Boyer's entire comment. He said the economy has affected attendance and the organization has to adjust to that.

October26
12-13-2011, 11:44 AM
The economy is a factor - fans won't dig deep into their pockets unless the team is good. They will save their money for something else.

Not since the White Flag Trade has this team lost such credibility with the fans. Major decisions should have been made in May not September. I don't have faith in the organization and that feeling won't change if the economy finally gets better. I hope a clear strategy evolves soon because I don't know what the team is trying to do.

+1. Great post, Dan, and right on target. I also have no idea what direction the White Sox organization is headed. Very discouraging times right now; I feel like the 2012 Sox slogan should be: 2012 White Sox: We're Going Nowhere.

asindc
12-13-2011, 11:46 AM
So given what Kenny said, how is the trade of Santos rebuilding or even positioning for rebuilding? Wasn't he under the team's payroll for six years? Isn't he a young talent? Didn't he prove his ability? What?

So given what Kenny said, how is the trade of Santos rebuilding or even positioning for rebuilding?:
Received a young pitching prospect in return.

Wasn't he under the team's payroll for six years?:
Yes.

Isn't he a young talent?:
Depends on if you consider 28 (will be 29 during 2012 season) young.

Didn't he prove his ability? What?:
Yes and no. When he pitched well, he was outstanding. When he didn't have his best stuff, he got pounded. He proved that he can be shaky in the closer's role. He blew six of 36 save chances and lost five games, including the infamous Detroit meltdown. The Sox probably concluded that his stock will get no higher than now and he hasn't proven that he can close games in the heat of a playoff race. They obviously did not want to pay $7.5 million over the next three seasons, with a club option for $22.75 million more over the three seasons after that, to find out.

TaylorStSox
12-13-2011, 11:48 AM
He's right. If we packed the park last year, we wouldn't be rebuilding. I'm as guilty as anybody. I stayed home most of the year because I didn't like the team.

SI1020
12-13-2011, 11:53 AM
+1. Great post, Dan, and right on target. I also have no idea what direction the White Sox organization is headed. Very discouraging times right now; I feel like the 2012 Sox slogan should be: 2012 White Sox: We're Going Nowhere. I wish I could say you're wrong but I can't. This is currently a rudderless directionless organization.

Noneck
12-13-2011, 11:58 AM
He's right. If we packed the park last year, we wouldn't be rebuilding. I'm as guilty as anybody. I stayed home most of the year because I didn't like the team.

The Sox may not have rebuilt and have kept MB and Santos but all that would do is give us the club they had last year. In my wildest dreams I can not imagine the Sox eating the salaries of either Dunn or Rios or adding to the payroll they had last year even if last years attendance was ok. I would not be happy with a another year with the players the Sox had last year.

Milw
12-13-2011, 11:59 AM
He's right. If we packed the park last year, we wouldn't be rebuilding. I'm as guilty as anybody. I stayed home most of the year because I didn't like the team.
I went to about a dozen games, and I can honestly say that I enjoyed myself at two, maybe three. In fact, I ate tickets to two games--not because I had something better to do, but because it just wasn't fun watching that team. I'm the biggest Sox fan I know, and I didn't want to be there. I can't imagine how awful it must have seemed to casual fans.

The fans have nothing to apologize for. If anything, the team should be apologizing to us for their lazy, lackadaisical play.

October26
12-13-2011, 12:02 PM
I wish I could say you're wrong but I can't. This is currently a rudderless directionless organization.

Thank you. I like that word rudderless so I looked it up, and it is a perfect fit:

rud·der·less adjective  
1. -Lacking a rudder
2. -Lacking a clear sense of one's aims or principles
today's leadership is rudderless.

I want what we all want, to see the White Sox win. If we have to rebuild, then so be it, but please Kenny and Jerry tell us what is the plan? I feel like there are conflicting messages coming from the Sox and it is confusing.

doublem23
12-13-2011, 12:06 PM
I wish I could say you're wrong but I can't. This is currently a rudderless directionless organization.

I think the Sox's vision is pretty clear. It takes more than 12 days in 1 off-season to re-alter the composition of a team, but anyone who doesn't think they have a direction is mistaken or not paying attention.

asindc
12-13-2011, 12:19 PM
I think the Sox's vision is pretty clear. It takes more than 12 days in 1 off-season to re-alter the composition of a team, but anyone who doesn't think they have a direction is mistaken or not paying attention.

Or too disillusioned to take an objective view of the situation. When Sox fans are envious of Brewers or Tigers fans, it is obvious to me that a long term view isnt there

Milw
12-13-2011, 12:22 PM
Or too disillusioned to take an objective view of the situation. When Sox fans are envious of Brewers or Tigers fans, it is obvious to me that a long term view isnt there
This.

Will the Brewers and Tigers be better than the Sox in 2012? Probably. Would I want the Sox to trade situations with either of those teams for the long term? Hell no.

doublem23
12-13-2011, 12:40 PM
Or too disillusioned to take an objective view of the situation. When Sox fans are envious of Brewers or Tigers fans, it is obvious to me that a long term view isnt there

But the Brewers just signed Aramis Ramirez! What a franchise!

I know people are pissed and I know they're frustrated with the last few seasons, but come on, folks... Settle down.

kittle42
12-13-2011, 12:46 PM
I think the Sox's vision is pretty clear. It takes more than 12 days in 1 off-season to re-alter the composition of a team, but anyone who doesn't think they have a direction is mistaken or not paying attention.

They have a direction - but the person guiding them there is questionable.

JB98
12-13-2011, 01:40 PM
I went to about a dozen games, and I can honestly say that I enjoyed myself at two, maybe three. In fact, I ate tickets to two games--not because I had something better to do, but because it just wasn't fun watching that team. I'm the biggest Sox fan I know, and I didn't want to be there. I can't imagine how awful it must have seemed to casual fans.

The fans have nothing to apologize for. If anything, the team should be apologizing to us for their lazy, lackadaisical play.

Yeah, we went to 17 ballgames last year, and frankly, I consider it a miracle the Sox won nine of those 17. There were several that were just not entertaining or fun at all. It seemed like the players didn't want to be there. If players don't want to play, why should fans want to watch?

I refuse to criticize any fan who stayed away last season. The 2011 Sox were a bad, boring team. And they played much, much better ball on the road than at home. They really stunk it up at USCF last summer.

Milw
12-13-2011, 01:40 PM
They have a direction - but the person guiding them there is questionable.
For sure. We need to hire a GM who is a proven winner.

Oh, wait...

Soxman219
12-13-2011, 01:57 PM
Are the White Sox the only sports team that blames their fans for everything?

eriqjaffe
12-13-2011, 02:00 PM
The 2012 White Sox: "Look What You Made Us Do!"

doublem23
12-13-2011, 02:00 PM
Are the White Sox the only sports team that blames their fans for everything?

Have they blamed us for anything? A lot of this thread reads like the pity poetry of a middle school goth kid, for ****'s sake.

DSpivack
12-13-2011, 02:03 PM
Have they blamed us for anything? A lot of this thread reads like the pity poetry of a middle school goth kid, for ****'s sake.

Speaking of which, I saw the South Park goth/vampire episode again last night. Does that make USCF Hot Topic?

SI1020
12-13-2011, 02:07 PM
I think the Sox's vision is pretty clear. It takes more than 12 days in 1 off-season to re-alter the composition of a team, but anyone who doesn't think they have a direction is mistaken or not paying attention. I hope you are right. Maybe you see something I don't.

Or too disillusioned to take an objective view of the situation. When Sox fans are envious of Brewers or Tigers fans, it is obvious to me that a long term view isnt there Merely mentioning how well these teams might draw doesn't make one envious. I have no envy whatsoever to these teams or the states they are located in. I will say Wisconsin is a nice place to eat, drink and be merry and for the most part have enjoyed the locals. I see lots of objectivity here. Everything that isn't sunshine and roses also isn't treason. Perhaps doub is right and they have a plan. KW never reminded me of a planner, but rather a spontaneous go for broke gunslinger. Maybe circumstances will force him to change. I'll always root for the Sox, things just look kind of brutal to me at the moment. We shall see.

102605
12-13-2011, 02:16 PM
Why do they even need a slogan?

soxfanatlanta
12-13-2011, 02:54 PM
Why do they even need a slogan?

WSI needs more material for fodder.

salty99
12-13-2011, 03:26 PM
I blame the change in patches on the uniform.

JC456
12-13-2011, 03:29 PM
Have they blamed us for anything? A lot of this thread reads like the pity poetry of a middle school goth kid, for ****'s sake.
I think they have been blaming Sox fans for years. The management when questioned on why they do what they do, complain in fact that the park is not full. Yet they fail to mention that the product on the field sucked. So when they do nothing, isn't that blaming the fans for not coming out to the park?

Now they want to blame the economy and the fact that their fan base would be impacted. Instead, they should be saying, what they need to do to get fans to come out to the park. How about fixing that instead of complaining about the economy?

GoGoCrede
12-13-2011, 03:35 PM
I think they have been blaming Sox fans for years. The management when questioned on why they do what they do, complain in fact that the park is not full. Yet they fail to mention that the product on the field sucked. So when they do nothing, isn't that blaming the fans for not coming out to the park?

Nnow they want to blame the economy and the fact that their fan base would be impacted. Instead, they should be saying, what they need to do to get fans to come out to the park. How about fixing that instead of complaining about the economy?

I would agree with this. No, they haven't blamed the entirety of attendance woes on the fans, but they have blamed us in part, especially Ozzie who is no longer here, but was an employee when the comments were made. I don't think people on here who complain about being blamed are just being whiny, I think they have a legitimate beef. Are some posts about the issue over the top? Maybe. But at the heart of the issue, their beef about it is not unfounded.

I think their big task is how to gets fans to the ballpark, like you said. Gimmicks like Elvis Night, bobbleheads, and the like do bring people out, but I think there's a fine line they have to walk if they don't want it to become too gimmicky or too focused on promotional nights instead of actual baseball. But the baseball itself doesn't look like it's going to be too entertaining. So Brooks is in quite the pickle.

eriqjaffe
12-13-2011, 03:45 PM
I blame the change in patches on the uniform.It's been a slow downward spiral since they got rid of the vests.

GoGoCrede
12-13-2011, 03:46 PM
I blame the change in patches on the uniform.

The cold churros are what sealed it for me.

kittle42
12-13-2011, 03:48 PM
For sure. We need to hire a GM who is a proven winner.

Oh, wait...

Ugh. People who succeed in sports often then fail and get fired. It happens in every sport, every season.

JC456
12-13-2011, 03:56 PM
Well, not really, he'll turn 29 in the middle of next season. Plus, he was blocking one of our few legit prospects.
So, who was he blocking?

where is the equality of the trade? Please, a proven closer for a double A pitcher? that's it. Major league experience for only one prospect at double A? How is that at all fair value to the fan base/ organization?

MtGrnwdSoxFan
12-13-2011, 04:02 PM
So, who was he blocking?

where is the equality of the trade? Please, a proven closer for a double A pitcher? that's it. Major league experience for only one prospect at double A? How is that at all fair value to the fan base/ organization?

Addison Reed, Minor League Reliever of the Year.

We traded a 29-year old converted shortstop/closer for a 22-year old with excellent peripherals. We don't need a proven closer if we're going to rebuild, it's pretty much pointless....and Santos isn't even all that "proven".

asindc
12-13-2011, 04:02 PM
I think they have been blaming Sox fans for years. The management when questioned on why they do what they do, complain in fact that the park is not full. Yet they fail to mention that the product on the field sucked. So when they do nothing, isn't that blaming the fans for not coming out to the park?

Now they want to blame the economy and the fact that their fan base would be impacted. Instead, they should be saying, what they need to do to get fans to come out to the park. How about fixing that instead of complaining about the economy?

Since the 2011 season ended:

1) Hired a new manager.
2) Hired a new hitting coach.
3) Hired a new bench coach.
4) Traded for a young pitching prospect.
5) Actively marketed Quentin, Danks, Floyd in trade talks.
6) Announced that some ticket prices will be decreased.

Now you might disagree with any or all of these moves, but to declare nothing has been done, on December 13 no less, is simply inaccurate. I guess they could have signed Aramis Ramirez like the Brewers, or pass on signing Mark Buehrle like the Tigers did when their rotation is shaky beyond their #2 guy, but I'm glad they did not.

I remain convinced that if Dunn, Rios, and Peavy collectively had produced this past season even 85% of what they showed themselves to be capable of before coming here, the Sox would have won 92-93 games and most likely the division (some of those wins would have come against Detroit, knocking down their win total). In such case, this thread would not even exist, even though the Sox officials will not have done anything different over the past year.

asindc
12-13-2011, 04:07 PM
Addison Reed, Minor League Reliever of the Year.

We traded a 29-year old converted shortstop/closer for a 22-year old with excellent peripherals. We don't need a proven closer if we're going to rebuild, it's pretty much pointless....and Santos isn't even all that "proven".

It should be added that Reed has shown more ability at this point than Santos did when he made the Opening Day in 2010. By the way, the same people who evaluated Santos then and now are evaluating Reed now.

Hitmen77
12-13-2011, 04:10 PM
A good team and/or a well run organization will draw fans in spite of the economy in the nothern midwest- just ask the Twins, Tigers and Brewers.

The Twins, Tigers, and Brewers have won how many combined World Series trophies in the last... 20 years now? The answer to that is zero, right? Zero.

The Sox, in the least 6 years have given their fans more than those three teams have given theres in their last combined 60 seasons. Maybe their fans, on a whole, are just better than Sox fans. :dunno:

I don't think it's that other teams fans are better than Sox fans. But, those teams do provide an interesting comparison. These other teams all had poor attendance in the recent past and now are drawing well in a bad economy.

The story for the Sox isn't so much that they're the only one of these teams to have won the WS recently, it's more that the Sox have seen attendance decline each year since they were a huge draw in '06 as reigning champs. Here might be some factors that contribute to this:

- The Sox have generally underachieved since July 2006. Since that time, their overall record is under .500. Three years in a row of stumbling in April/May and then again in August/Sept. really killed enthusiasm for this team. I think almost all agree that the 2011 team was really painful to watch.

- The Twins obviously are benefiting from a bounce that Target Field gave them. Not only does this park still have the "new" factor in its favor, but many say it's a terrific ballpark. After years in Metrodome purgatory, I can see why the new place is a big draw for MN fans. Plus, the Twins (except for 2011) have been rather competitive in the division. I don't think the repeated ALDS washouts really keeps fans away from what is usually an exciting team.

- The Brewers have drawn well since moving to Miller Park. Maybe the roof helps them in early season bad weather days. :dunno: They've been generally competitive after years of being terrible. Plus having 2 MVP caliber players (Braun and Fielder) has to help generate interest and excitement in the team.

- The Tigers should be the ones hardest hit by the bad economy since Michigan is probably the hardest it state in this recession. They're not in the playoffs every year, but I think there's at least a sense that the team is committed to winning. This team also features 2 MVP caliber players....perhaps even two possible candidates to be 1st ballot HOFers at their current career pace.

- None of these other teams share their market with another team whose huge popularity is firmly entrenched. I don't care how long the Cubs have been losing, they still own the hearts of most fans in Chicago. Maybe those in Tinley Park or the city's South Side feel differently, but where I live in DuPage it's still a vast majority Cubs fans. Oh, I definitely think support for the Sox has grown in the last decade. But most people I know who live in my area will never support the Sox no matter what. At least in Michigan, Minnesota, or Wisconsin, those teams can win over most sports fans by fielding a competitive team. That's just not the case for the White Sox in Chicagoland.

That's my :twocents:. I don't say this as a complaint about what Sox management is saying or about the loyalty of Sox fans. I just see these as realities Sox ownership have to face as they market this team.

SI1020
12-13-2011, 04:33 PM
- None of these other teams share their market with another team whose huge popularity is firmly entrenched. I don't care how long the Cubs have been losing, they still own the hearts of most fans in Chicago. Maybe those in Tinley Park or the city's South Side feel differently, but where I live in DuPage it's still a vast majority Cubs fans. Oh, I definitely think support for the Sox has grown in the last decade. But most people I know who live in my area will never support the Sox no matter what. Too bad. Not so long ago it was closer to even in DuPage and Kane counties. Of course I remember when it was hard to find anything but a Sox fan in NW Indiana and the SW corner of Michigan.

Milw
12-13-2011, 04:48 PM
Ugh. People who succeed in sports often then fail and get fired. It happens in every sport, every season.
No doubt.

You wrote that KW is "questionable." You're welcome to like him or dislike him, but once you've succeeded, you're no longer questionable. You are, by definition, proven.

That doesn't make him immune to criticism, nor does it mean he shouldn't be fired. But there's nothing "questionable" about him.

kittle42
12-13-2011, 04:49 PM
Major league experience for only one prospect at double A? How is that at all fair value to the fan base/ organization?

Players far, far better than Sergio Santos have been traded for one minor leaguer, you know.

fusillirob1983
12-13-2011, 05:28 PM
I think they have been blaming Sox fans for years. The management when questioned on why they do what they do, complain in fact that the park is not full. Yet they fail to mention that the product on the field sucked. So when they do nothing, isn't that blaming the fans for not coming out to the park?

Now they want to blame the economy and the fact that their fan base would be impacted. Instead, they should be saying, what they need to do to get fans to come out to the park. How about fixing that instead of complaining about the economy?

I'm not really sure why parts of this thread are still focused on management "blaming Sox fans". They did no such thing in that article. They didn't complain the park isn't full. They acknowledged it isn't full and decided to lower prices. For once, after several seasons of not living up to 2005, they finally did that. 6 straight seasons of increases until now.

I agree, Brooks failed to mention the product on the field sucked. He is the head of marketing. As much as we all would like the Sox to be that honest with us, that's not his role. Kenny and Ozzie (I know, he's know longer with the organization) mentioned last year that the product was not what it should have been. That's sufficient enough. It's their product based on the players they signed and coached. Personally if I was Reinsdorf, and Brooks Boyer went around telling the media how much the Sox sucked, I'm probably consider firing him. THAT'S NOT HIS JOB. Brooks definitely didn't say the opposite either. He did not say how awesome the Sox are going to be next year.

On the "doing nothing" as a sign of blaming the fans for not coming out: I take this is a sign of running a business. I'm sure they don't raise or lower ticket prices on a whim. My guess is they figure out a budget for the year, what their possible payroll and other operating costs will be and determine ticket prices to help maximize that piece of revenue (in addition to advertising, tv contracts, merchandise, etc.). This has nothing to do with "well it's the fan's fault so we'll just keep jacking up prices." Prices are going down because they know their payroll is dropping significantly, demand for tickets is dropping significantly (I'm sure some season ticket holders didn't renew), and therefore they realized they should drop their prices to levels that they project will help them maximize revenue.

TDog
12-13-2011, 05:49 PM
Are the White Sox the only sports team that blames their fans for everything?

It is fashionable among many White Sox fans to complain that management is blaming them. The statements made by the White Sox are similar to statements made elsewhere by people running other teams. I have never seen a fanbase so proud of justifying nonsupport of the team. There are even White Sox fans who assert that it is stupid to go to games when their team is losing (or waste their time going to games in seasons when the White Sox end up "teasing" fans by contending but not finishing first.

Part of it might be that White Sox fans resent the way Cubs fans support their team. They argue that Cubs fans are fans of Wrigley Field, that support is boosted by Wrigley Field being a tourist attraction (and there it is celebrated, certainly -- I was on a literary pub crawl in Dublin, Ireland, a few years ago, and a man from Liverpool who had never been to America told me that anyone can golf at St. Andrews in Scotland, adding that it would be like letting anyone in to play baseball at Wrigley Field). There also is the argument that the Cubs will never build a winner as long as they support a loser. Deep down, though, I think Sox fans are envious that the Cubs get so much support when they don't have a nicer park, when their teams aren't as good.

This century, the White Sox have spent money on talent. Many people have disagreed with the way the money has been spent. I have been vocal on a few big-money players in particular. Some complain that the White Sox act like a small- or mid-market team. The support they get from fans and their broadcast money seems to define as such, but spending money on players has not been a legitimate issue until this offseason, when they have a few huge contracts on their active roster. The position I have seen offered that the owner(s) of a baseball team have an obligation to field a winner even when it leads to financial loss is ridiculous, just as the argument that spending money on a team will bring fans out to the ballpark to support it.

I actually believe Brooks was being tactful in his comments. White Sox management hasn't blamed fans. But any time a statement comes from management that hints at economic reality, fans who are proud of their nonsupport for their team are quick to accuse the White Sox of blaming the fans.

SI1020
12-13-2011, 06:26 PM
Maybe, just maybe a big part of this is that the Cubs have a lot more fans than we do. Where outside of the Chicago metro area in the midwest are Sox fans concentrated? Downstate? Iowa? Once you get outside the Midwest most Sox fans are expats like me. The Cubs have just been more successful at marketing and garnering fan support than the Sox the last three decades or so. Why do we have to continually beat each other up for the sin of lack of support, or get defensive or sensitive with anyone we think is criticizing us for a lack of support? It's just another difficult situation the Sox and their fans find themselves in. Not the first time.

Lip Man 1
12-13-2011, 07:09 PM
The White Sox are a business to be sure however they are not like the hardware store down the street or a restaurant.

They are a 'public trust' (direct quote from Einhorn by the way) and as such have different obligations to the public they serve. I don't know if being a 'public trust' allows that organization to make a profit or if so, how much of one... that's for others to debate.

Just my opinion is, that if serving the public requires you to take a loss at times, then that's part of the deal for getting a new stadium built with taxpayer money and a very, very favorable lease agreement. (To say nothing of a restaurant built in part with taxpayer money.)

If your position is that the Sox are simply a business like any other business, than the public has zero obligations to support them in any way, shape or form if the product is bad...no different than if a restaurant serves you a bad meal or the hardware store sells you defective merchandise.

It's either one way or the other, can't have it both ways.

Lip

Frontman
12-13-2011, 08:01 PM
As someone who has been annoyed with Kenny's comments in the past; I see nowhere to be frustrated/upset with Brooks' comments. He doesn't put the blame on anyone or anything, other than the economy.

As fans, we got to give them a chance to rebuild. This season is going to be more about going to the game to enjoy the summer; versus rooting for a competitor.

spawn
12-13-2011, 08:19 PM
As someone who has been annoyed with Kenny's comments in the past; I see nowhere to be frustrated/upset with Brooks' comments. He doesn't put the blame on anyone or anything, other than the economy.

As fans, we got to give them a chance to rebuild. This season is going to be more about going to the game to enjoy the summer; versus rooting for a competitor.
I think a lot of the people bitching didn't even read the article. He speaks of the economy, but as the reason they are lowering ticket prices, not as the reason people aren't coming out to the games. But hey...

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.urlesque.com/media/2010/05/hatercar.jpg

gosox41
12-13-2011, 10:39 PM
I think a lot of the people bitching didn't even read the article. He speaks of the economy, but as the reason they are lowering ticket prices, not as the reason people aren't coming out to the games. But hey...

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.urlesque.com/media/2010/05/hatercar.jpg


Aren't they lowering ticket prices to increase attendance?

Bottom like is that if this team played to potential in 2011 this bad economy wouldn't be an issue. We would have drawn 2.4-2.5 mill last year and prices wouldn't be going down at all for 2012.

Winning is the only way for the Sox to draw unless a real marketing genius can figure out how to increase the Sox following and make them a tourist destination like the North Sider's have done.

Pretty much, there is no need for Brooks as he isn't the genius everyone thinks he is. He IS better then Gallas and that makes him look like a genius.


Bob

Jerko
12-14-2011, 10:27 AM
We all understand the dynamics of payroll as it relates to attendance. We also know if the team wins, (or at the very least, looks like they CARE about winning, which was not the case last season), that people will show up. We don't need the friggin marketing guy giving us an economics lesson in December. Good for them for lowering prices (since they can't give a refund for last season), but what Boyer said CAN be taken as "blaming" the fans, but putting an "it's not their fault" twist on it. Win and people will show up. I'm sick of hearing people from the organization talking about attendance. That team was garbage last year; the manager didn't want to be here, the GM didn't think it was part of his job to actually talk to the manager, and we had at least 2, if not more, players on the team that made fans feel insulted that they were atually paying to watch those stiffs. I'm not expecting any miracles, but let's see how the season goes with a manager that actually wants the job. I guess my point is that Boyer didn't really say anything bad, but it would have been better if he didn't say anything at all. We all know what's going on.

russ99
12-14-2011, 10:51 AM
We all understand the dynamics of payroll as it relates to attendance. We also know if the team wins, (or at the very least, looks like they CARE about winning, which was not the case last season), that people will show up. We don't need the friggin marketing guy giving us an economics lesson in December. Good for them for lowering prices (since they can't give a refund for last season), but what Boyer said CAN be taken as "blaming" the fans, but putting an "it's not their fault" twist on it. Win and people will show up. I'm sick of hearing people from the organization talking about attendance. That team was garbage last year; the manager didn't want to be here, the GM didn't think it was part of his job to actually talk to the manager, and we had at least 2, if not more, players on the team that made fans feel insulted that they were atually paying to watch those stiffs. I'm not expecting any miracles, but let's see how the season goes with a manager that actually wants the job. I guess my point is that Boyer didn't really say anything bad, but it would have been better if he didn't say anything at all. We all know what's going on.

The fact that the Sox can weather a poor revenue season like last year may even further prove that ownership doesn't commit all they can to the baseball operation each year.

Baseball franchises were run at a loss prior to 2000 (with the real profit coming in when the team is sold) - up until gate sharing and web-based and web-store income pushed every owner's annual take to a point where they could profit every year.

I don't begrudge the Sox shareholders a decent profit, but I'm annoyed at the annual games they play holding out a carrot to the fans where if certain attendance is reached, then they'll try more to improve the product on the field. It works the other way around for every franchise except those with iconic museum-like ballparks.

This year I'm taking a stand. I'll still go to my usual 10-15 games next year, but I'm not giving the current management team my cash in advance. I'm also cautiously optimistic about next season, but the manager change isn't going to turn a poor roster into a good one.

Lip Man 1
12-14-2011, 12:20 PM
Jerko:

Apparently you can add friction between some of the pitchers and coach Don Cooper.

Story in the Sun-Times today and Danks goes on the record confirming that there were some issues between Peavy and Coop.

Lip

fusillirob1983
12-14-2011, 12:22 PM
We all understand the dynamics of payroll as it relates to attendance. We also know if the team wins, (or at the very least, looks like they CARE about winning, which was not the case last season), that people will show up. We don't need the friggin marketing guy giving us an economics lesson in December. Good for them for lowering prices (since they can't give a refund for last season), but what Boyer said CAN be taken as "blaming" the fans, but putting an "it's not their fault" twist on it. Win and people will show up. I'm sick of hearing people from the organization talking about attendance. That team was garbage last year; the manager didn't want to be here, the GM didn't think it was part of his job to actually talk to the manager, and we had at least 2, if not more, players on the team that made fans feel insulted that they were atually paying to watch those stiffs. I'm not expecting any miracles, but let's see how the season goes with a manager that actually wants the job. I guess my point is that Boyer didn't really say anything bad, but it would have been better if he didn't say anything at all. We all know what's going on.

Jerko, this isn't directly at you as much as a broad question for anyone that read the article and held a similar stance, but in what way can Brooks' quote be taken as blaming the fans?

In direct contrast to the post I made yesterday, attendance is one of the topics that if asked about (I'm assuming Brooks didn't call up Mark Gonzales and say "Mark, Mark! I need an article about attendance and lowering ticket prices pronto!"), that it would be appropriate for Brooks to discuss.

I figured if people are consistently taking this position after reading the article, that I must have missed something, and I'm hoping someone can help me out so that I don't misinterpret the article. I'm trying to keep an open mind that I might be crazy and not just reading the article through "Sox-colored" glasses.

For assistance in finding a starting point in helping me interpret the article differently, please see my previous posts in this thread for my current interpretation. Thanks.

asindc
12-14-2011, 12:29 PM
Jerko:

Apparently you can add friction between some of the pitchers and coach Don Cooper.

Story in the Sun-Times today and Danks goes on the record confirming that there were some issues between Peavy and Coop.

Lip

That "issue" was the subject of another thread, but has been appropriately dumped in the Cowley dump thread where it belongs.

asindc
12-14-2011, 12:35 PM
Jerko, this isn't directly at you as much as a broad question for anyone that read the article and held a similar stance, but in what way can Brooks' quote be taken as blaming the fans?

In direct contrast to the post I made yesterday, attendance is one of the topics that if asked about (I'm assuming Brooks didn't call up Mark Gonzales and say "Mark, Mark! I need an article about attendance and lowering ticket prices pronto!"), that it would be appropriate for Brooks to discuss.

I figured if people are consistently taking this position after reading the article, that I must have missed something, and I'm hoping someone can help me out so that I don't misinterpret the article. I'm trying to keep an open mind that I might be crazy and not just reading the article through "Sox-colored" glasses.

For assistance in finding a starting point in helping me interpret the article differently, please see my previous posts in this thread for my current interpretation. Thanks.

I can picture the posts that would have followed a "No comment" by Boyer:

"Can you believe that guy? This just shows the Sox don't have the guts to face the facts!"

"We all know the truth! Why are they so afraid to talk about it?"

"Oh, they can talk all day about why they let Buehrle walk, but they can't talk about this? Unbelievable!"

doublem23
12-14-2011, 12:42 PM
That "issue" was the subject of another thread, but has been appropriately dumped in the Cowley dump thread where it belongs.

Anything penned by Cowley needs a big "" around it if we're going to call it a story.

gobears1987
12-14-2011, 12:48 PM
I'm seeing double. :tongue:

Lip Man 1
12-14-2011, 12:59 PM
I understand about Joe but considering Danks is quoted directly, and on the record, lends truth to it.

Lip

JC456
12-14-2011, 02:06 PM
Since the 2011 season ended:

1) Hired a new manager.
2) Hired a new hitting coach.
3) Hired a new bench coach.
4) Traded for a young pitching prospect.
5) Actively marketed Quentin, Danks, Floyd in trade talks.
6) Announced that some ticket prices will be decreased.

Now you might disagree with any or all of these moves, but to declare nothing has been done, on December 13 no less, is simply inaccurate. I guess they could have signed Aramis Ramirez like the Brewers, or pass on signing Mark Buehrle like the Tigers did when their rotation is shaky beyond their #2 guy, but I'm glad they did not.

I remain convinced that if Dunn, Rios, and Peavy collectively had produced this past season even 85% of what they showed themselves to be capable of before coming here, the Sox would have won 92-93 games and most likely the division (some of those wins would have come against Detroit, knocking down their win total). In such case, this thread would not even exist, even though the Sox officials will not have done anything different over the past year.
1) Hired a new manager. Maybe a year late and one with no coaching experience.
2) Hired a new hitting coach. I didn't hear about this one, but it too is too late and probably on the cheap. I will have to investigate.
3) Hired a new bench coach. Big deal what does this mean the manager can't manage?
4) Traded for a young pitching prospect. One Major league closer (established) for a double a player, not value to the Sox.
5) Actively marketed Quentin, Danks, Floyd in trade talks. Still on the team. big deal.
6) Announced that some ticket prices will be decreased. When? and again big deal.

So I answered your list. Big deal! That's doing something that has the fan base exicted huh? Just read on here.
You can say whatever you want the fact is they didn't and this organization tried nothing to offset the failures until too late.

DumpJerry
12-14-2011, 02:14 PM
1) Hired a new manager. Maybe a year late and one with no coaching experience.
2) Hired a new hitting coach. I didn't hear about this one, but it too is too late and probably on the cheap. I will have to investigate.
3) Hired a new bench coach. Big deal what does this mean the manager can't manage?
4) Traded for a young pitching prospect. One Major league closer (established) for a double a player, not value to the Sox.
5) Actively marketed Quentin, Danks, Floyd in trade talks. Still on the team. big deal.
6) Announced that some ticket prices will be decreased. When? and again big deal.

So I answered your list. Big deal! That's doing something that has the fan base exicted huh? Just read on here.
You can say whatever you want the fact is they didn't and this organization tried nothing to offset the failures until too late.
Maybe you should do some research before you post. It will make you more credible.

By the way, all MLB Managers have a Bench Coach.

soxfanatlanta
12-14-2011, 02:20 PM
1) Hired a new manager. Maybe a year late and one with no coaching experience.
2) Hired a new hitting coach. I didn't hear about this one, but it too is too late and probably on the cheap. I will have to investigate.
3) Hired a new bench coach. Big deal what does this mean the manager can't manage?
4) Traded for a young pitching prospect. One Major league closer (established) for a double a player, not value to the Sox.
5) Actively marketed Quentin, Danks, Floyd in trade talks. Still on the team. big deal.
6) Announced that some ticket prices will be decreased. When? and again big deal.

So I answered your list. Big deal! That's doing something that has the fan base exicted huh? Just read on here.
You can say whatever you want the fact is they didn't and this organization tried nothing to offset the failures until too late.

You realize that it's December, right? KW is not finished making his moves. You might not think that he is not the right person to rebuild the team (big deal), but you cannot say he is not trying.

JC456
12-14-2011, 02:22 PM
Players far, far better than Sergio Santos have been traded for one minor leaguer, you know.
You know what, there was no need to let Santos go. He wasn't going to cost money to the team for quite some time. Sorry, but he is a proven closer now. one double A player is flat out ridiculas, no matter what you're ok with.

BTW, name one.

spawn
12-14-2011, 02:26 PM
You know what, there was no need to let Santos go. He wasn't going to cost money to the team for quite some time. Sorry, but he is a proven closer now. one double A player is flat out ridiculas, no matter what you're ok with.

BTW, name one.

He was a closer for one full season, and that makes him a proven closer? I think you need to go back to talking about all the attention the Cubs are getting.

doublem23
12-14-2011, 02:34 PM
You know what, there was no need to let Santos go. He wasn't going to cost money to the team for quite some time. Sorry, but he is a proven closer now. one double A player is flat out ridiculas, no matter what you're ok with.

BTW, name one.

Carlos Quentin leaps to mind.

At any rate, Santos is pushing 30, he's not a young player and the Sox bullpen is one of the few strengths. Plus, though there is wide range of opinions on Molina, some people think he is front-line starter material. If that's what KW and the Sox scouts saw, then you can understand the move. You get a SP 7 years younger than the RP you gave up. It's not as ridiculas [sic] as you make it sound.

JC456
12-14-2011, 02:44 PM
I'm not really sure why parts of this thread are still focused on management "blaming Sox fans". They did no such thing in that article. They didn't complain the park isn't full. They acknowledged it isn't full and decided to lower prices. For once, after several seasons of not living up to 2005, they finally did that. 6 straight seasons of increases until now.

I agree, Brooks failed to mention the product on the field sucked. He is the head of marketing. As much as we all would like the Sox to be that honest with us, that's not his role. Kenny and Ozzie (I know, he's know longer with the organization) mentioned last year that the product was not what it should have been. That's sufficient enough. It's their product based on the players they signed and coached. Personally if I was Reinsdorf, and Brooks Boyer went around telling the media how much the Sox sucked, I'm probably consider firing him. THAT'S NOT HIS JOB. Brooks definitely didn't say the opposite either. He did not say how awesome the Sox are going to be next year.

On the "doing nothing" as a sign of blaming the fans for not coming out: I take this is a sign of running a business. I'm sure they don't raise or lower ticket prices on a whim. My guess is they figure out a budget for the year, what their possible payroll and other operating costs will be and determine ticket prices to help maximize that piece of revenue (in addition to advertising, tv contracts, merchandise, etc.). This has nothing to do with "well it's the fan's fault so we'll just keep jacking up prices." Prices are going down because they know their payroll is dropping significantly, demand for tickets is dropping significantly (I'm sure some season ticket holders didn't renew), and therefore they realized they should drop their prices to levels that they project will help them maximize revenue.
Well my friend, the quote on the beginning of this thread and the following, how can one not draw a line that the Sox are saying without an increase in attendance, we will have to rebuild? I see it no other way. It is what I read into it. You can choose not to, but don't act like others are out in left field with how they feel.

"The reason stems largely from a collection of underachieving performances that resulted in the Sox's third consecutive non-playoff season and a shortfall of 500,000 in projected 2011 home attendance that was needed to support a $127 million payroll."

Because the fans weren't in the seats, then we have to rebuild. That is what I read from this statement. And, I'm not saying they did something wrong last year, I applaud the effort, but really, watching last years team was very hard to do. It has been pointed out here by many. Whose fault is that? The fans? No bad movies will not get high attendance, so bad baseball can't expect to draw better than a bad movie.

So what to do? How about playing better baseball? That is all anyone on here is saying. Their approach is wrong is also a common point. And boyer shouldn't be using the economy about the fans as a reason to make moves. IMO, it is a death wish. Witnessed now on here. Since when is the economy only affecting White Sox fans? he said it so he has to answer the questions.

Stop being such a homer and see it from a different view point.

JC456
12-14-2011, 02:47 PM
Carlos Quentin leaps to mind.

At any rate, Santos is pushing 30, he's not a young player and the Sox bullpen is one of the few strengths. Plus, though there is wide range of opinions on Molina, some people think he is front-line starter material. If that's what KW and the Sox scouts saw, then you can understand the move. You get a SP 7 years younger than the RP you gave up. It's not as ridiculas [sic] as you make it sound.
Carlos Quinten? What about him? He wasn't a starter.

DumpJerry
12-14-2011, 02:49 PM
You know what, there was no need to let Santos go. He wasn't going to cost money to the team for quite some time. Sorry, but he is a proven closer now. one double A player is flat out ridiculas, no matter what you're ok with.

BTW, name one.
Santos was pretty good the first half of the season. During the second half, he started to struggle. Maybe the scouting caught with him? Maybe Kenny signed him to the team-friendly contract to make it easier to trade him since the team getting him won't have to sit down and negotiate a new contract before they see what they have (*cough* Mark Teahen *cough*).

As several people have pointed out, he is pushing 30 and Molina is 21/22. Having Addison Reed under control probably made Santos expendable.

doublem23
12-14-2011, 02:50 PM
Well my friend, the quote on the beginning of this thread and the following, how can one not draw a line that the Sox are saying without an increase in attendance, we will have to rebuild? I see it no other way. It is what I read into it. You can choose not to, but don't act like others are out in left field with how they feel.

"The reason stems largely from a collection of underachieving performances that resulted in the Sox's third consecutive non-playoff season and a shortfall of 500,000 in projected 2011 home attendance that was needed to support a $127 million payroll."

Because the fans weren't in the seats, then we have to rebuild. That is what I read from this statement. And, I'm not saying they did something wrong last year, I applaud the effort, but really, watching last years team was very hard to do. It has been pointed out here by many. Whose fault is that? The fans? No bad movies will not get high attendance, so bad baseball can't expect to draw better than a bad movie.

So what to do? How about playing better baseball? That is all anyone on here is saying. Their approach is wrong is also a common point. And boyer shouldn't be using the economy about the fans as a reason to make moves. IMO, it is a death wish. Witnessed now on here. Since when is the economy only affecting White Sox fans? he said it so he has to answer the questions.

Stop being such a homer and see it from a different view point.

First off, let's set the record straight, just because someone doesn't agree with your point of view does not make them a "homer," so let's knock that off right now. Secondly, the post you quoted goes over almost everything in your own, frankly, the only one who seems hell-bent on ramming his opinion down everyone's throat is you. Take a dose of your own medicine, the Sox are waging a war of words with their fans, no matter how angry about it you are.

doublem23
12-14-2011, 02:54 PM
Carlos Quinten? What about him? He wasn't a starter.

He actually was starting in Arizona in 2007 before injury derailed his season. Josh Byrnes and Alberto Callaspo started the season in RF for Arizona, but Byrnes shifted to LF to take over for Jerry Hairston, Jr. and Quentin stepped in and was their everday RF from the middle of April until the first week of July. And then, of course, in 2008 he was an everyday player for the Sox.

JC456
12-14-2011, 03:13 PM
First off, let's set the record straight, just because someone doesn't agree with your point of view does not make them a "homer," so let's knock that off right now. Secondly, the post you quoted goes over almost everything in your own, frankly, the only one who seems hell-bent on ramming his opinion down everyone's throat is you. Take a dose of your own medicine, the Sox are waging a war of words with their fans, no matter how angry about it you are.
The quoted lines in my response is from the article. Sorry.

"The reason stems largely from a collection of underachieving performances that resulted in the Sox's third consecutive non-playoff season and a shortfall of 500,000 in projected 2011 home attendance that was needed to support a $127 million payroll."

That is not my quote.

Defending everything an organization does indicates a homer mentality to me. Sorry you're offended by that. And I'm sorry, but your constant responses to my posts seems to indicate you have a personal issue with me. I am no different than anyone else on here. I never asked you to agree with me. Not you. You made comments that I responded to. That is what the message board I thought was for. So, my opinions are different than yours and you want to try and change not just mine, but others. Sorry but that's what I feel. I love the Sox, I'm probably a homer most other times.

But I agree with the initial poster for this thread. I do think the White Sox use the fan base as an excuse for the deals they make. And they strongly suggest it is due to attendance. Right, wrong, whatever, that is what they do in my opinion! You stating that isn't so, doesn't change my opinion! I give quotes on why and you defend the quoted material like it's yours. Again here is the quote from the article:

"The reason stems largely from a collection of underachieving performances that resulted in the Sox's third consecutive non-playoff season and a shortfall of 500,000 in projected 2011 home attendance that was needed to support a $127 million payroll."

palehozenychicty
12-14-2011, 03:42 PM
A good team and/or a well run organization will draw fans in spite of the economy in the nothern midwest- just ask the Twins, Tigers and Brewers.

Exactly. They need to stop blaming attendance for their management ills.

JC456
12-14-2011, 03:55 PM
Exactly. They need to stop blaming attendance for their management ills.
It is one area I feel the Cubs organization does better than us. they know how to get fans to the park. Retread players are just that retread. The Sox organization brings these kind of players in all the time. Mark Teahan, was brought in I feel because he was a Sox killer once. I think they do that a lot. Adam Dunn I agree was not their fault. However, the reason why attendance didn't pick up is because he sucked. Right, wrong whatever. Again, as I posted in another post, a bad movie will die on the vine and I believe bad baseball is up there with a bad movie. So what happens Dunn fails and the attendance doesn't pick up. Fans fault? Nope! Bad baseball is!

DSpivack
12-14-2011, 03:57 PM
It is one area I feel the Cubs organization does better than us. they know how to get fans to the park. Retread players are just that retread. The Sox organization brings these kind of players in all the time. Mark Teahan, was brought in I feel because he was a Sox killer once. I think they do that a lot. Adam Dunn I agree was not their fault. However, the reason why attendance didn't pick up is because he sucked. Right, wrong whatever. Again, as I posted in another post, a bad movie will die on the vine and I believe bad baseball is up there with a bad movie. So what happens Dunn fails and the attendance doesn't pick up. Fans fault? Nope! Bad baseball is!

They don't really have to try. They have one of the most famous major tourist attractions in the country.

kittle42
12-14-2011, 04:32 PM
BTW, name one.

Nap Lajoie
Three Finger Brown
Eddie Gaedel
Craig Grebeck

Your google is as good as mine.

spawn
12-14-2011, 04:41 PM
Nap Lajoie
Three Finger Brown
Eddie Gaedel
Craig Grebeck

Your google is as good as mine.

Jeff Bagwell was a AA prospect who was traded for major leaguer Larry Andersen. Wonder who got the better of that trade?

TommyJohn
12-14-2011, 04:44 PM
Jeff Bagwell was a AA prospect who was traded for major leaguer Larry Andersen. Wonder who got the better of that trade?


Let us not forget John Smoltz for Doyle Alexander.

asindc
12-14-2011, 04:56 PM
Nap Lajoie
Three Finger Brown
Eddie Gaedel
Craig Grebeck

Your google is as good as mine.

Zack Wheeler for Carlos Beltran.

spawn
12-14-2011, 05:00 PM
BTW, name one.

Nap Lajoie
Three Finger Brown
Eddie Gaedel
Craig Grebeck

Your google is as good as mine.

Jeff Bagwell was a AA prospect who was traded for major leaguer Larry Andersen. Wonder who got the better of that trade?

Let us not forget John Smoltz for Doyle Alexander.

Zack Wheeler for Carlos Beltran.
Boom. Roasted.

Lip Man 1
12-14-2011, 05:32 PM
TJ:

Although in the short term the Tigers got what they badly needed from Alexander.

9-0 with a 1.53 ERA in 87. They don't win that division if they don't make that deal.

Sometimes it happens that way.

Lip

fusillirob1983
12-14-2011, 06:41 PM
JC456,
The item you put in quotes in your response to my post was I agree, word for word from the article. However, it was not a statement by Brooks Boyer, nor did it have quotes around it on the Chicago Tribune website. It was a sentence from the brain of Mark Gonzales. I'm not imagining things am I? The only things written in the article that are direct quotes from Brooks are the sentences with quotes around them.

I'm not being a homer at all. The Sox were a big disappointment last year. Without a doubt. All I did was read the article and give an objective (at least I thought so) interperation of it.

thechico
12-14-2011, 07:27 PM
Where outside of the Chicago metro area in the midwest are Sox fans concentrated?

Streator. Ottawa. Maybe LaSalle/Peru. One of the reasons I like living here is that the Cubs don't DOMINATE the fan base as they do in the burbs. Heck, there are almost as many Cards fans here as Cub fans, so Sox fans may have a *slim* majority. Of course, I can't attend as many games living 90+ miles from the park.

Frontman
12-14-2011, 07:44 PM
Streator. Ottawa. Maybe LaSalle/Peru. One of the reasons I like living here is that the Cubs don't DOMINATE the fan base as they do in the burbs. Heck, there are almost as many Cards fans here as Cub fans, so Sox fans may have a *slim* majority. Of course, I can't attend as many games living 90+ miles from the park.

Actually here in the Southern Suburbs, you'd be surprised that the Cubs aren't the dominant fanbase as folks are lead to believe. I see a heck of a lot more Sox gear and Sox custom plates than I do Cubs stuff.

CWSpalehoseCWS
12-15-2011, 04:15 AM
They don't really have to try. They have one of the most famous major tourist attractions in the country.

Exactly. I can't even count the amount of time I've heard someone say they're going to a Cubs game AND the bars afterward. I'd be willing to be at the least half of those attending the games couldn't even name the team's starting rotation.

JC456
12-15-2011, 09:56 AM
JC456,
The item you put in quotes in your response to my post was I agree, word for word from the article. However, it was not a statement by Brooks Boyer, nor did it have quotes around it on the Chicago Tribune website. It was a sentence from the brain of Mark Gonzales. I'm not imagining things am I? The only things written in the article that are direct quotes from Brooks are the sentences with quotes around them.

I'm not being a homer at all. The Sox were a big disappointment last year. Without a doubt. All I did was read the article and give an objective (at least I thought so) interperation of it.
Well If I said it was a quote from Brooks Boyer than of course I am in error. I believe I only stated that I agree the team blames the fan base and I lifted that quote as evidence that it has been reported that it was expected that the Sox were looking for good attendance based on the dollars spent.

Mark Gonzales had to get it from someone, I would think, from the team to accurately print the statement. But hey, maybe not. The quote that was Boyers presented on the original post, IMO, does state that Mr. Boyer believes the poor economy will affect his fan base, insinuating to me that fans will not come out to the park because they won't be able to afford it. And to that I merely state that Mr. Boyer needs to not mention such things even if it is how he feels. Like I stated in the previous posts, White Sox fans are not the only people who are affected by the poor economy if they are at all. So, from that statement I take him to say in a defeatest way: since the fans most likely won't be filling our park, then we can't go after the higher priced players and therefore, we must rebuild. And for that I say phooey. I'd like evidence from a business prespective that says you put sub average talent on a ball field will fill a baseball stadium other than Wrigley Field.

Then I'd advise Mr. Boyer that if indeed you wish to fill your ball park, then Mr. Boyer, you must put better players on the field and that may mean spending money. This is a capitalistic market and to make money one must spend money. To trot out retread players every year has gotten quite old. There's Kenny looking for that genie in the bottle year after year from players who are on the downside of their careers. And, some that simply don't get how to play the game, like, IMO, Ramirez at short and Rios in Center.

IMO again, I think the Sox think all the fans want is a WS every year. Well, that is true to a point, but I know speaking only for me, that I want to see a competitive team. One with heart that doesn't give up. Last year's team seemed to quit and I think that was due to Ozzie and Kenny. And I'm sorry, I never want to see a team I root for quit. And I don't think it is good business to challenge your fan base as Ozzie and Kenny seemed to do last year.

For this Sox fan it must make sense what they do!

TommyJohn
12-15-2011, 10:27 AM
Then I'd advise Mr. Boyer that if indeed you wish to fill your ball park, then Mr. Boyer, you must put better players on the field and that may mean spending money.

They DID spend money on Peavy and Dunn. It didn't work out, but how can you say they need to "spend money." The moves they made were designed to fill the park and bring in a winner. That didn't happen, oh well. But how the hell can you say this?

DumpJerry
12-15-2011, 11:07 AM
Then I'd advise Mr. Boyer that if indeed you wish to fill your ball park, then Mr. Boyer, you must put better players on the field and that may mean spending money.
:KW
I'm sorry, what is Brooks' job title?

asindc
12-15-2011, 12:26 PM
1) Hired a new manager. Maybe a year late and one with no coaching experience.
2) Hired a new hitting coach. I didn't hear about this one, but it too is too late and probably on the cheap. I will have to investigate.
3) Hired a new bench coach. Big deal what does this mean the manager can't manage?
4) Traded for a young pitching prospect. One Major league closer (established) for a double a player, not value to the Sox.
5) Actively marketed Quentin, Danks, Floyd in trade talks. Still on the team. big deal.
6) Announced that some ticket prices will be decreased. When? and again big deal.

So I answered your list. Big deal! That's doing something that has the fan base exicted huh? Just read on here.
You can say whatever you want the fact is they didn't and this organization tried nothing to offset the failures until too late.

Maybe you should do some research before you post. It will make you more credible.

By the way, all MLB Managers have a Bench Coach.

You realize that it's December, right? KW is not finished making his moves. You might not think that he is not the right person to rebuild the team (big deal), but you cannot say he is not trying.

JC456,
The item you put in quotes in your response to my post was I agree, word for word from the article. However, it was not a statement by Brooks Boyer, nor did it have quotes around it on the Chicago Tribune website. It was a sentence from the brain of Mark Gonzales. I'm not imagining things am I? The only things written in the article that are direct quotes from Brooks are the sentences with quotes around them.

I'm not being a homer at all. The Sox were a big disappointment last year. Without a doubt. All I did was read the article and give an objective (at least I thought so) interperation of it.

Well If I said it was a quote from Brooks Boyer than of course I am in error. I believe I only stated that I agree the team blames the fan base and I lifted that quote as evidence that it has been reported that it was expected that the Sox were looking for good attendance based on the dollars spent.

Mark Gonzales had to get it from someone, I would think, from the team to accurately print the statement. But hey, maybe not. The quote that was Boyers presented on the original post, IMO, does state that Mr. Boyer believes the poor economy will affect his fan base, insinuating to me that fans will not come out to the park because they won't be able to afford it. And to that I merely state that Mr. Boyer needs to not mention such things even if it is how he feels. Like I stated in the previous posts, White Sox fans are not the only people who are affected by the poor economy if they are at all. So, from that statement I take him to say in a defeatest way: since the fans most likely won't be filling our park, then we can't go after the higher priced players and therefore, we must rebuild. And for that I say phooey. I'd like evidence from a business prespective that says you put sub average talent on a ball field will fill a baseball stadium other than Wrigley Field.

Then I'd advise Mr. Boyer that if indeed you wish to fill your ball park, then Mr. Boyer, you must put better players on the field and that may mean spending money. This is a capitalistic market and to make money one must spend money. To trot out retread players every year has gotten quite old. There's Kenny looking for that genie in the bottle year after year from players who are on the downside of their careers. And, some that simply don't get how to play the game, like, IMO, Ramirez at short and Rios in Center.

IMO again, I think the Sox think all the fans want is a WS every year. Well, that is true to a point, but I know speaking only for me, that I want to see a competitive team. One with heart that doesn't give up. Last year's team seemed to quit and I think that was due to Ozzie and Kenny. And I'm sorry, I never want to see a team I root for quit. And I don't think it is good business to challenge your fan base as Ozzie and Kenny seemed to do last year.

For this Sox fan it must make sense what they do!

Let's see JC456, in order for Sox management to get a benefit of the doubt from you at this point, they should have done the following:

1) Hired a new Manager, preferably one with coaching experience, before the 2011 season;
2) Hired a new Hitting Coach sometime before the end of the 2011 season;
3) Not necessarily have bothered to hire a new Bench Coach (whatever that person does);
4) Gotten more than a AA player for Sergio Santos (even though there are several examples of much more accomplished players being traded one AA player);
5) Successfully traded Danks, Floyd, and Quentin sometime between the end of the season and December 13;
6) Not necessarily have bothered to announce the decrease in some ticket prices;
7) Probably acquired someone to replace Alexei Ramirez and not have acquired Rios at all, or least acquired someone to replace him as well;
8) Have Mr. Boyer, Vice-President of Sales and Marketing, take an active role in acquiring better players;
9) Generally, do something (before December 13) to get the fan base "exicted" [sic];
10) Have it all make sense to you.

Does that accurately re-state your thoughts so far, or am I missing anything?

Jerko
12-15-2011, 12:28 PM
Some prices have gone down, but more premium dates:

http://www.chicagonow.com/white-sox-observer/2011/11/the-white-sox-have-lowered-ticket-prices-kinda-not-really/

DumpJerry
12-15-2011, 12:41 PM
Some prices have gone down, but more premium dates:

http://www.chicagonow.com/white-sox-observer/2011/11/the-white-sox-have-lowered-ticket-prices-kinda-not-really/
The blogger says there are more premium dates, but the premium dates have not been announced and his link is to the regular schedule which does not indicate which are premium and which are not.

doublem23
12-15-2011, 01:02 PM
The blogger says there are more premium dates, but the premium dates have not been announced and his link is to the regular schedule which does not indicate which are premium and which are not.

Yes they have and his numbers are accurate.

Warning - PDF

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/cws/downloads/y2012/2012_sked.pdf

DumpJerry
12-15-2011, 01:24 PM
Yes they have and his numbers are accurate.

Warning - PDF

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/cws/downloads/y2012/2012_sked.pdf
That is not the link the blogger provided when he made his statement.

fusillirob1983
12-15-2011, 01:25 PM
Well If I said it was a quote from Brooks Boyer than of course I am in error. I believe I only stated that I agree the team blames the fan base and I lifted that quote as evidence that it has been reported that it was expected that the Sox were looking for good attendance based on the dollars spent.

Well, that is what they did last year, exactly as you are requesting in your post. They spent money, the highest payroll in team history, in hopes that it would improve the product on the field. They in turn hoped that an improved product on the field would lead to better attendance. Unfortunately players did not play up to expectations, and sure go ahead and blame Kenny for the situation they're in now with Peavy being off and Rios not replicating his 2010 performance, but go ahead and read threads back from last year when the Sox acquired Adam Dunn. If you can find anyone on this message board that predicted prior to the regular season starting that Dunn would have one of the worst qualifying batting averages in history, then I'd say that person should be working in the front office of an MLB team being paid for their abilities to predict such a drop off over the course of one offseason.

Mark Gonzales had to get it from someone, I would think, from the team to accurately print the statement. But hey, maybe not. The quote that was Boyers presented on the original post, IMO, does state that Mr. Boyer believes the poor economy will affect his fan base, insinuating to me that fans will not come out to the park because they won't be able to afford it. And to that I merely state that Mr. Boyer needs to not mention such things even if it is how he feels. Like I stated in the previous posts, White Sox fans are not the only people who are affected by the poor economy if they are at all. So, from that statement I take him to say in a defeatest way: since the fans most likely won't be filling our park, then we can't go after the higher priced players and therefore, we must rebuild. And for that I say phooey. I'd like evidence from a business prespective that says you put sub average talent on a ball field will fill a baseball stadium other than Wrigley Field.


Mark Gonzales doesn't have to get that information from anyone to accurately print that statement. I could have told him that. If one of my friends asked me why the Sox are rebuilding, I'd probably give them a similar answer to what Mark Gonzales wrote, and I have no affiliation with the White Sox other than being a fan. I understand if something "is not accurate" that it can be construed as libel and he would otherwise be editorializing (which I think only columnists are supposed to be allowed to do), some of the people in the media on this board can probably correct this if I'm being inaccurate. They aren't supposed to editorialize but I think there's probably been enough examples discussed on this board where a reporter has editorialized in an article. Anyway, anyone that has been alive the past two months can't disagree with that statement made by Mark Gonzales. We know why they are cutting payroll and ticket prices.


Mark Gonzales had to get it from someone, I would think, from the team to accurately print the statement. But hey, maybe not. The quote that was Boyers presented on the original post, IMO, does state that Mr. Boyer believes the poor economy will affect his fan base, insinuating to me that fans will not come out to the park because they won't be able to afford it. And to that I merely state that Mr. Boyer needs to not mention such things even if it is how he feels. Like I stated in the previous posts, White Sox fans are not the only people who are affected by the poor economy if they are at all. So, from that statement I take him to say in a defeatest way: since the fans most likely won't be filling our park, then we can't go after the higher priced players and therefore, we must rebuild. And for that I say phooey. I'd like evidence from a business prespective that says you put sub average talent on a ball field will fill a baseball stadium other than Wrigley Field.

In what way does it seem like they think they can fill a stadium with sub average talent? Most fans (I'm not trying to speak for anyone, just summarizing what many posted on this message board last wintere/spring) probably didn't think that's what they were trying to do going into 2011. We had 88 wins in 2010, and I think most people, based on our team on paper, probably thought that number would at worst be similar or increase to the prior year. I think they are fully aware that more fans will come out as the product on the field is better. Also, I'm not saying they never have complained about the lack of attendance either. I think there were some players quoted in 2005 that they would think more fans would be out there in September, but they aren't complaining about lack of attendance now.

Don't you think, as a fan, that it's a good thing the Sox are lowering ticket prices this year knowing full well that the team won't be as good in 2012 as the last couple years? Personally, I would be disappointed if they kept prices the same or raised prices, but that's just me.

doublem23
12-15-2011, 01:53 PM
That is not the link the blogger provided when he made his statement.

Right I get that, just correcting your assertation that the premium dates haven't been announced. They obviously have, the link I provided is easy to find on the Sox website, it's the 2012 season, and it proves that the numbers in his tables were accurate. The blogger probably just linked to the wrong page accidentally, it happens, especially at a blog service like ChicagoNow, which I believe is almost entirely staffed by volunteer writers. They will take any dimwit with a computer and give them a blog, as far as I can tell.

JC456
12-15-2011, 01:55 PM
Let's see JC456, in order for Sox management to get a benefit of the doubt from you at this point, they should have done the following:

1) Hired a new Manager, preferably one with coaching experience, before the 2011 season;
2) Hired a new Hitting Coach sometime before the end of the 2011 season;
3) Not necessarily have bothered to hire a new Bench Coach (whatever that person does);
4) Gotten more than a AA player for Sergio Santos (even though there are several examples of much more accomplished players being traded one AA player);
5) Successfully traded Danks, Floyd, and Quentin sometime between the end of the season and December 13;
6) Not necessarily have bothered to announce the decrease in some ticket prices;
7) Probably acquired someone to replace Alexei Ramirez and not have acquired Rios at all, or least acquired someone to replace him as well;
8) Have Mr. Boyer, Vice-President of Sales and Marketing, take an active role in acquiring better players;
9) Generally, do something (before December 13) to get the fan base "exicted" [sic];
10) Have it all make sense to you.

Does that accurately re-state your thoughts so far, or am I missing anything?
So NASA should have just abandoned Apollo 13 eh? Don't try and do something to recover. Just shrug your shoulders and say it is what it is.
Not in my world. Someone should have done something. I don't care that Peavy was who he was, he was damaged goods anyway. That is a shame on Kenny. Dunn, unexpected. So you just give up eh? Forget about everything, don't try and recover. Sorry, I didn't see them try and recover last year.

If spending more money was a way out, then that's what the Sox should have done if winning was first on their list. If the almighty dollar is all they are concerned with, then they all should sell the team. That's my opinion. If you all are satisfied spending $100 dollars a game on top of the ticket and parking to watch a bad movie, then that's your right. Not me though. And, I am saddened they pushed me into that decision. I love going and watching good baseball. I'm not spending any more money to appease this owner any longer.

But I will continue to state that the Sox PR does indeed blame the fan base for not showing up instead of apologizing that the team under performed and then assure the fan base they’re working to correct that for future business. Isn't that a Duh? Isn't that what every team needs? I think it escapes this management team.

JC456
12-15-2011, 01:59 PM
Well, that is what they did last year, exactly as you are requesting in your post. They spent money, the highest payroll in team history, in hopes that it would improve the product on the field. They in turn hoped that an improved product on the field would lead to better attendance. Unfortunately players did not play up to expectations, and sure go ahead and blame Kenny for the situation they're in now with Peavy being off and Rios not replicating his 2010 performance, but go ahead and read threads back from last year when the Sox acquired Adam Dunn. If you can find anyone on this message board that predicted prior to the regular season starting that Dunn would have one of the worst qualifying batting averages in history, then I'd say that person should be working in the front office of an MLB team being paid for their abilities to predict such a drop off over the course of one offseason.



Mark Gonzales doesn't have to get that information from anyone to accurately print that statement. I could have told him that. If one of my friends asked me why the Sox are rebuilding, I'd probably give them a similar answer to what Mark Gonzales wrote, and I have no affiliation with the White Sox other than being a fan. I understand if something "is not accurate" that it can be construed as libel and he would otherwise be editorializing (which I think only columnists are supposed to be allowed to do), some of the people in the media on this board can probably correct this if I'm being inaccurate. They aren't supposed to editorialize but I think there's probably been enough examples discussed on this board where a reporter has editorialized in an article. Anyway, anyone that has been alive the past two months can't disagree with that statement made by Mark Gonzales. We know why they are cutting payroll and ticket prices.



In what way does it seem like they think they can fill a stadium with sub average talent? Most fans (I'm not trying to speak for anyone, just summarizing what many posted on this message board last wintere/spring) probably didn't think that's what they were trying to do going into 2011. We had 88 wins in 2010, and I think most people, based on our team on paper, probably thought that number would at worst be similar or increase to the prior year. I think they are fully aware that more fans will come out as the product on the field is better. Also, I'm not saying they never have complained about the lack of attendance either. I think there were some players quoted in 2005 that they would think more fans would be out there in September, but they aren't complaining about lack of attendance now.

Don't you think, as a fan, that it's a good thing the Sox are lowering ticket prices this year knowing full well that the team won't be as good in 2012 as the last couple years? Personally, I would be disappointed if they kept prices the same or raised prices, but that's just me.
Read my last post for your answers.

JC456
12-15-2011, 02:07 PM
:KW
I'm sorry, what is Brooks' job title?

Brooks Boyer, Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer. He speaks for the White Sox. He presents the team to the fan base! So he, at an executive level, says here is your 20xx White Sox.

doublem23
12-15-2011, 02:10 PM
Brooks Boyer, Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer. He speaks for the White Sox. He presents the team to the fan base! So he, at an executive level, says here is your 20xx White Sox.

So then... it's not his job to put better players on the field.

fusillirob1983
12-15-2011, 02:10 PM
Read my last post for your answers.





1. In what way does it seem like they think they can fill a stadium with sub average talent?

2. Don't you think, as a fan, that it's a good thing the Sox are lowering ticket prices this year knowing full well that the team won't be as good in 2012 as the last couple years?


So above are the only two questions I asked in my last post.

1. I'm not going to look at your last post for my answer. In 2011, the Sox, as well as most fans thought they were not putting sub average talent on the field prior to the start of the sason. I think the Sox are aware more fans will show up if they put a good product on the field. If you have something in your post that is concrete evidence contrary to this, please let me know.

2. I don't know what your answer was (it sounds like you wanted them to spend more money and raises ticket prices, or maybe you wanted them to spend more money but lower or keep ticket prices the same - which makes no sense to me), but I think yes, it is a good thing if the Sox lower ticket prices knowing full well the team will not be as good as last year.

JC456
12-15-2011, 02:11 PM
They DID spend money on Peavy and Dunn. It didn't work out, but how can you say they need to "spend money." The moves they made were designed to fill the park and bring in a winner. That didn't happen, oh well. But how the hell can you say this?
Peavy was injured when Kenny got him and he has done very little since he has been here. How is that good money spent?

Dunn I don't blame him for. I guess he never did a what if scenario in his head. That unfortunately is a bad investment. That happens, so what Kenny is showing us he has no alternative plans in the event of a what if scenario hits his team. I know that other teams in the division were going out and getting additional players to help their situation while our team just suffered through it's inconsistencies.

doublem23
12-15-2011, 02:18 PM
Peavy was injured when Kenny got him and he has done very little since he has been here. How is that good money spent?

Peavy's latest batch of injury problems really aren't related to his injury he had when he was aquired, when he just turned his ankle in a freak accident. I agree that so far it hasn't been money well spent, but that wasn't what you had accused the Sox of; this is the perilous nature of teams that spend big money on players; just about every team at the top of the MLB payroll leaderboard has at least 1-2 bad contracts they have to just on and wait to expire.

asindc
12-15-2011, 02:21 PM
Let's see JC456, in order for Sox management to get a benefit of the doubt from you at this point, they should have done the following:

1) Hired a new Manager, preferably one with coaching experience, before the 2011 season;
2) Hired a new Hitting Coach sometime before the end of the 2011 season;
3) Not necessarily have bothered to hire a new Bench Coach (whatever that person does);
4) Gotten more than a AA player for Sergio Santos (even though there are several examples of much more accomplished players being traded one AA player);
5) Successfully traded Danks, Floyd, and Quentin sometime between the end of the season and December 13;
6) Not necessarily have bothered to announce the decrease in some ticket prices;
7) Probably acquired someone to replace Alexei Ramirez and not have acquired Rios at all, or least acquired someone to replace him as well;
8) Have Mr. Boyer, Vice-President of Sales and Marketing, take an active role in acquiring better players;
9) Generally, do something (before December 13) to get the fan base "exicted" [sic];
10) Have it all make sense to you.

Does that accurately re-state your thoughts so far, or am I missing anything?

So NASA should have just abandoned Apollo 13 eh? Don't try and do something to recover. Just shrug your shoulders and say it is what it is.
Not in my world. Someone should have done something. I don't care that Peavy was who he was, he was damaged goods anyway. That is a shame on Kenny. Dunn, unexpected. So you just give up eh? Forget about everything, don't try and recover. Sorry, I didn't see them try and recover last year.

If spending more money was a way out, then that's what the Sox should have done if winning was first on their list. If the almighty dollar is all they are concerned with, then they all should sell the team. That's my opinion. If you all are satisfied spending $100 dollars a game on top of the ticket and parking to watch a bad movie, then that's your right. Not me though. And, I am saddened they pushed me into that decision. I love going and watching good baseball. I'm not spending any more money to appease this owner any longer.

But I will continue to state that the Sox PR does indeed blame the fan base for not showing up instead of apologizing that the team under performed and then assure the fan base they’re working to correct that for future business. Isn't that a Duh? Isn't that what every team needs? I think it escapes this management team.

So I take it that I did not miss anything. Two questions:

1) If Sox management had done all those things, do you think the team would have won more games this past season?

2) Should Sox management not announce to the public any changes in prices, whether they be for tickets, parking, concessions, or any other expense associated with attending a game?


By the way, I like the sentiment expressed in this post:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=281434&postcount=162

DumpJerry
12-15-2011, 02:41 PM
By the way, I like the sentiment expressed in this post:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=281434&postcount=162
:tiphat:

WhiteSox5187
12-15-2011, 04:06 PM
Peavy's latest batch of injury problems really aren't related to his injury he had when he was aquired, when he just turned his ankle in a freak accident. I agree that so far it hasn't been money well spent, but that wasn't what you had accused the Sox of; this is the perilous nature of teams that spend big money on players; just about every team at the top of the MLB payroll leaderboard has at least 1-2 bad contracts they have to just on and wait to expire.

I thought I read somewhere (and Jake might have even admitted it) that as he rushed back from his ankle injury he altered his mechanics (which the White Sox did tinker with in 2010) which meant he was compensating more with his arm which then led him tearing his lat.

It's easy to say that it was "just an ankle" injury but that effects the rest of a pitcher's mechanics. An injury to a pitcher's legs is just as serious as an injury to his arm. It's always a gamble when you trade for someone on the DL and it certainly looks like Kenny's gamble didn't work out with Peavy.

doublem23
12-15-2011, 04:16 PM
I thought I read somewhere (and Jake might have even admitted it) that as he rushed back from his ankle injury he altered his mechanics (which the White Sox did tinker with in 2010) which meant he was compensating more with his arm which then led him tearing his lat.

It's easy to say that it was "just an ankle" injury but that effects the rest of a pitcher's mechanics. An injury to a pitcher's legs is just as serious as an injury to his arm. It's always a gamble when you trade for someone on the DL and it certainly looks like Kenny's gamble didn't work out with Peavy.

And all that speculation and $2 will get you is a cup of coffee. I'm not saying there's no possible way Peavy's ankle injury could have been a factor in his arm injury, but ultimately, guys have been rolling their ankles for years now and to my knowledge, no one else has torn their latissmus dorsi clear off the bone. This isn't as clear cut a path as say, getting drunk, trying to drive home, and plowing your car into a tree.

Aside from the monumental risk of acquiring pitchers in general, there's risk any time you aquire a big salary. Barry Zito had a pristine health record when the Giants signed him, and while hasn't been hurt, he's just more or less sucked. Chris Carpenter has had serious shoulder and arm injuries twice in his career including Tommy John surgery in 2007 and twice he's won the Comeback Player of the Year award.

:dunno:

It's just kind of the nature of the beast, but the Peavy was the kind of deal that you want the Sox to make if you want the Sox to be a big market team.

WhiteSox5187
12-15-2011, 04:38 PM
And all that speculation and $2 will get you is a cup of coffee. I'm not saying there's no possible way Peavy's ankle injury could have been a factor in his arm injury, but ultimately, guys have been rolling their ankles for years now and to my knowledge, no one else has torn their latissmus dorsi clear off the bone. This isn't as clear cut a path as say, getting drunk, trying to drive home, and plowing your car into a tree.

Aside from the monumental risk of acquiring pitchers in general, there's risk any time you aquire a big salary. Barry Zito had a pristine health record when the Giants signed him, and while hasn't been hurt, he's just more or less sucked. Chris Carpenter has had serious shoulder and arm injuries twice in his career including Tommy John surgery in 2007 and twice he's won the Comeback Player of the Year award.

:dunno:

It's just kind of the nature of the beast, but the Peavy was the kind of deal that you want the Sox to make if you want the Sox to be a big market team.

He strained a tendon in his ankle, he rolled it in his previous start and continued to pitch that day and then made his next start and hurt his tendon. His injury in 2009 was more than just a rolled ankle.

doublem23
12-15-2011, 04:58 PM
He strained a tendon in his ankle, he rolled it in his previous start and continued to pitch that day and then made his next start and hurt his tendon. His injury in 2009 was more than just a rolled ankle.

A rolled ankle is just strained tendon. It's just the severity.

Again the point remains plenty of guys have had leg, ankle, and foot injuries and have not detached a muscle in their back. To put the two together and say that X definitely casued Y just not true, no matter how much you want to blame Kenny for not seeing it coming.

JC456
12-15-2011, 06:10 PM
So I take it that I did not miss anything. Two questions:

1) If Sox management had done all those things, do you think the team would have won more games this past season?

2) Should Sox management not announce to the public any changes in prices, whether they be for tickets, parking, concessions, or any other expense associated with attending a game?


By the way, I like the sentiment expressed in this post:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=281434&postcount=162

Sir I have no time machine. Doing basically nothing didn't serve them well I do know.

The Sox can do what ever they want to do. I was a split season ticket holder and checked my account for the pricing for the same package in 2012 and it isn't any cheaper than last year. I do know that last year Monday's were special priced seats cheap, and I know at the end of the year they dropped prices on tickets for the non season ticket holder games, but did not offer the same deal to the season ticket holders. So the Sox stuck it to us.

And, that doesn't mean the price of product after you get into the park is any cheaper. A drink will remain the same price I'm sure and so will the food products. And for my wife and I we spent nearly $100 every game in the park when the night was done. Our choice. But that won't happen in 2012. And that is on them. They helped me make my decision by doing basically nothing last year to right the ship. In fact, I felt Ozzie was personally sticking it to the fans.

Steelrod
12-15-2011, 06:36 PM
Sir I have no time machine. Doing basically nothing didn't serve them well I do know.

The Sox can do what ever they want to do. I was a split season ticket holder and checked my account for the pricing for the same package in 2012 and it isn't any cheaper than last year. I do know that last year Monday's were special priced seats cheap, and I know at the end of the year they dropped prices on tickets for the non season ticket holder games, but did not offer the same deal to the season ticket holders. So the Sox stuck it to us.

And, that doesn't mean the price of product after you get into the park is any cheaper. A drink will remain the same price I'm sure and so will the food products. And for my wife and I we spent nearly $100 every game in the park when the night was done. Our choice. But that won't happen in 2012. And that is on them. They helped me make my decision by doing basically nothing last year to right the ship. In fact, I felt Ozzie was personally sticking it to the fans.
The fact is that you held the tickets and had your better locations all year. The prices dropped because the team was out of it. You can't have it both ways.
It's kinda like when there are playoffs. Ticket buyers complain about prices while others complain about not being able to get any!

SI1020
12-15-2011, 08:24 PM
I thought I read somewhere (and Jake might have even admitted it) that as he rushed back from his ankle injury he altered his mechanics (which the White Sox did tinker with in 2010) which meant he was compensating more with his arm which then led him tearing his lat.

It's easy to say that it was "just an ankle" injury but that effects the rest of a pitcher's mechanics. An injury to a pitcher's legs is just as serious as an injury to his arm. It's always a gamble when you trade for someone on the DL and it certainly looks like Kenny's gamble didn't work out with Peavy. Dizzy Dean anyone? Leg, ankle, foot and toe injuries can cause a pitcher to alter his mechanics, possibly resulting in problems with the pitching arm.

http://philaphans.com/phillies/2011/03/03/the-dizzy-dean-injury-cascade/

JC456
12-16-2011, 09:48 AM
The fact is that you held the tickets and had your better locations all year. The prices dropped because the team was out of it. You can't have it both ways.
It's kinda like when there are playoffs. Ticket buyers complain about prices while others complain about not being able to get any!

Sorry I don't understand the comment I can't have it both ways.

You said they were cutting ticket prices. I stated they had cheap tickets last year on Mondays. It's is a practice of theirs. So if you comment that the Sox are lowering ticket prices to offset the lack of spending on players, then I stated the season package didn't go down in price. So to you, which are you referring too when you state the Sox are lowering ticket prices?

BTW, I've never complained about ticket prices, and I'm not complaining today. I'm merely pointing out that comments that state ticket prices are lowered, one should first investigate which tickets that one is refering to. Season package prices did not go down. Maybe if one isn't a season ticket holder the price of single day tickets have gone down, and I would bet for specific games against specific teams. You see, my seats at the park last year and previous years were priced differently depending on the opposition. Kapeesh?

JC456
12-16-2011, 10:22 AM
Peavy's latest batch of injury problems really aren't related to his injury he had when he was aquired, when he just turned his ankle in a freak accident. I agree that so far it hasn't been money well spent, but that wasn't what you had accused the Sox of; this is the perilous nature of teams that spend big money on players; just about every team at the top of the MLB payroll leaderboard has at least 1-2 bad contracts they have to just on and wait to expire.

Peavy has been a bust since he got here. He was injured the day Kenny got him. That's on him. Then he pays him, IMO, too much given the injury he came over with. Not much value as we both agree.

I also agree every team has payroll problems, so for the Sox it is not unique. I accuse the Sox of being cheap and devaluing their fan base. It is my opinion. You and others may disagree and that is quite fine with me. But I can produce facts that show other teams with the 1 or 2 bad contracts, still find a way to perceiver through a season by doing something positive for the team. Whatever that is. It could be bringing up someone from the minors, it could be a trade, it could be a free agent signing or lastly getting someone off the waiver wires. Boston, Minnesota, Detroit, Yankees, Tampa Bay for pete sake. The point is the other teams do that. Kenny tried the waiver wire with Rios. Rios to me seems very uninterested in playing baseball. He had a history in Toronto of that very thing, yet Kenny thought he’d give him a try. For me, he is not much of a ball player for a major league team. Every once in awhile he’ll do something, but for what he’s getting paid, I say no. That too is on Kenny.

And my final comment on Kenny is he will give an interview and state the team cannot afford to do anything when the team has been losing. To me, that's garbage. He’s the darn GM of the team. What does he mean by that is what I ask myself. IMO again, if a team really wants to win, at times the team has to bite the bullet and do something positive. Even if it doesn’t work out. Sitting back and doing little to nothing is not recognizing your fan base as important. It tells me that he is willing to suck as a team and live with the consequences. So 2012, he is now living with those consequences and that is the team’s season ticket holder base will be way down. And I bet, the response from the personnel of the team will be that they expect the season ticket sales to be down so they can’t go out and get the players they’d necessarily want to go after. Hum bug! That is a defeatist attitude.

Why not instead spark the fan base and draw in season ticket sales, by going after a quality outfielder, second baseman, third baseman, how about a pitcher. So far they are now down two players from last year’s roster who were as important to the team as a player can be, and in turn, they’ve done nothing but get a double A pitcher. So right off the bat they are two quality players down from the smelly team that produced a horrendous home field record in 2011. That’s really going out after the fan base; hey come watch this team. I’m sure that just inspires the heck out of the fan base to go out and buy season tickets.

Anyway, that’s what I accuse the Sox of!

Golden Sox
12-16-2011, 12:13 PM
Also, as it stands now, the team has done nothing to improve itself for 2012. The team still has 4 players in there lineup who can't hit, and its missing 2 pitchers fron last years team. How are we better for 2012? I'm fearful that they are going to trade Quentin, Danks and Floyd for prospects like they did with Santos. Yes, the economy has hit our fanbase hard, but why spend money on a team thats about as exciting to watch as watching paint dry?

kittle42
12-16-2011, 12:33 PM
Also, as it stands now, the team has done nothing to improve itself for 2012. The team still has 4 players in there lineup who can't hit, and its missing 2 pitchers fron last years team. How are we better for 2012? I'm fearful that they are going to trade Quentin, Danks and Floyd for prospects like they did with Santos. Yes, the economy has hit our fanbase hard, but why spend money on a team thats about as exciting to watch as watching paint dry?

I think it's pretty clear that aside from the necessary lip service KW has had to pay to the fans re: "We can still compete in 2012," that the Sox are rebuilding. If so, I would rather they do make as many trades as possible with the future beyond 2012 in mind, as long as they actually get a decent return, which I am not so confident in. So we might as well just accept it. It more likely than not needs to happen.

fusillirob1983
12-16-2011, 01:33 PM
I think it's pretty clear that aside from the necessary lip service KW has had to pay to the fans re: "We can still compete in 2012," that the Sox are rebuilding. If so, I would rather they do make as many trades as possible with the future beyond 2012 in mind, as long as they actually get a decent return, which I am not so confident in. So we might as well just accept it. It more likely than not needs to happen.

I agree with this statement completely. KW was quoted as using the word "rebuilding" last week when he talked about Danks/Floyd/Quentin being available in trades. He did give the lip service as kittle mentioned, but he's definitely not skirting the issue or blaming the fans for not showing up.

Lip Man 1
12-16-2011, 02:00 PM
The only real question is can Kenny actually head up a "rebuilding" effort which is so foreign to him both emotionally and from an experience standpoint.

Lip

JC456
12-16-2011, 04:19 PM
I agree with this statement completely. KW was quoted as using the word "rebuilding" last week when he talked about Danks/Floyd/Quentin being available in trades. He did give the lip service as kittle mentioned, but he's definitely not skirting the issue or blaming the fans for not showing up.
So maybe it is simantics, but if an organization is rebuilding, why do you think they would do that if they didn't feel they could meet payroll?

So giving up talent for lesser talent means you don't want a high payroll. You don't want high payroll if you feel the stadium won't be full. Isn't that stating my fan base won't show up? Come on man, that is exactly what rebuilding means. It means the Sox are saying they don't have money.

TheVulture
12-16-2011, 04:21 PM
I'm wondering if there is any statement a Sox official can make regarding the economic state of the team that will not be even remotely construed as a criticism of fans who do not attend games?

Yes.

"Ours fans didn't show up due to the poor, underachieving product we put on the field. Our team played a style of baseball our fans have dubbed 'corpseball' and obviously we need to put together an exciting team that plays good baseball to bring the fans back."

JC456
12-16-2011, 05:18 PM
Yes.

"Ours fans didn't show up due to the poor, underachieving product we put on the field. Our team played a style of baseball our fans have dubbed 'corpseball' and obviously we need to put together an exciting team that plays good baseball to bring the fans back."
And since we don't want to put a team together that plays good baseball we will get rid of those who played corpseball and bring in lesser talent. We'll punish the fans for not coming when we spent the money.

JC456
12-16-2011, 05:24 PM
So maybe it is simantics, but if an organization is rebuilding, why do you think they would do that if they didn't feel they could meet payroll?

So giving up talent for lesser talent means you don't want a high payroll. You don't want high payroll if you feel the stadium won't be full. Isn't that stating my fan base won't show up? Come on man, that is exactly what rebuilding means. It means the Sox are saying they don't have money.
And they don't really care the ball park won't be full, at least they'll make payroll. You see it is obvious it isn't a winning philosophy at White Sox camp. Instead, it is a payroll philosophy.

Instead of someone rallying the troops to find out how to fill the stadium, they just disconcern themselves from discussing it. Good thing none of these guys were in charge of the flight of Apollo 13. There aren't any creative minds in the group.

fusillirob1983
12-16-2011, 05:38 PM
So maybe it is simantics, but if an organization is rebuilding, why do you think they would do that if they didn't feel they could meet payroll?

So giving up talent for lesser talent means you don't want a high payroll. You don't want high payroll if you feel the stadium won't be full. Isn't that stating my fan base won't show up? Come on man, that is exactly what rebuilding means. It means the Sox are saying they don't have money.

The Sox are likely saying they don't have money. If they did they'd probably spend it. They went "all in" last year and it didn't work out. KW has a history of making moves midseason to try to improve the team. They didn't do that last year midseason. It appears they are looking to shed payroll in the offseason. KW has said they are rebuilding. They lowered ticket prices. I agree, they seem to expect fewer fans to show up this year. All signs point to it.

None of this means they're blaming the fans for not showing up. All it means is they're not being stupid and making the assumption fans will show up to see an overpriced, subpar product on the field like we saw last year. KW was quoted in 2010 or 2011, some time midseason one of those seasons that he does not blame the fans for not being there because he knows the Sox were not playing up to the fans' expectations. It seems like, at minimum they realize this and are taking a different approach to build their ballclub.

fusillirob1983
12-16-2011, 05:41 PM
And since we don't want to put a team together that plays good baseball we will get rid of those who played corpseball and bring in lesser talent. We'll punish the fans for not coming when we spent the money.

Actually they are looking to get rid of the players that did not play corpseball. The corpseball players have pretty unmovable contracts.

If you feel like you are being punished, don't go to the games.

Frontman
12-16-2011, 08:38 PM
And they don't really care the ball park won't be full, at least they'll make payroll. You see it is obvious it isn't a winning philosophy at White Sox camp. Instead, it is a payroll philosophy.

Instead of someone rallying the troops to find out how to fill the stadium, they just disconcern themselves from discussing it. Good thing none of these guys were in charge of the flight of Apollo 13. There aren't any creative minds in the group.

Ok, let me get this straight:

Kenny spent all he could last year, got "corpseball" as the result.

Kenny has begun to move the talent THAT HE CAN MOVE.

Brooks as well as Kenny and others with the Sox have stated the fans didn't deserve this, and as an organization they need to win fans back.

So, if they can't move the talent that is weighing the team down; and they "disconcern" themselves from a discussion about winning the fans back; what precisely do you want them to do?

And as far as creativity; creating words like "disconcern" illustrates who really has the creative mind here.

TDog
12-16-2011, 10:18 PM
And since we don't want to put a team together that plays good baseball we will get rid of those who played corpseball and bring in lesser talent. We'll punish the fans for not coming when we spent the money.


The idea that White Sox management is punishing fans after years of spending money, even on players teams demanded, without winning fan support is ridiculous.

If anything, White Sox have been guilty of listening too much to fans. Fans wanted Dunn, whose signing was celebrated (for reasons I could not understand at the time), but not with the purchase of season tickets. "All in" was supposed to have a double meaning. It was alluding to the fact that the team was spending its money in the poker vernacular. It also was supposed to suggest that all White Sox fans support the team. It didn't work that way.

Next year's salary restrictions are an inevitability, not a punishment.

Lip Man 1
12-16-2011, 11:14 PM
Blah, blah, blah...it's White Sox fans fault!!!!

Sox fans are the worst fans in the world, don't cha' know (Just ask Chris Berman!). How dare they even hint at making their feelings known I mean they've won three (count em') three World Series titles in 110 years!

Free Nate Schierholtz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not saying the organization did not try to win, they did, JR finally opened up the checkbook but to say Sox fans can't show their feelings and not show up when the team is bad, not caring, playing poorly is nonsense. Utter garbage.

Lip

TDog
12-17-2011, 12:33 AM
Blah, blah, blah...it's White Sox fans fault!!!!

Sox fans are the worst fans in the world, don't cha' know (Just ask Chris Berman!). How dare they even hint at making their feelings known I mean they've won three (count em') three World Series titles in 110 years!

Free Nate Schierholtz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not saying the organization did not try to win, they did, JR finally opened up the checkbook but to say Sox fans can't show their feelings and not show up when the team is bad, not caring, playing poorly is nonsense. Utter garbage.

Lip

Management has been opening up its checkbook for years. In fact, ownership will be doing what you consider their civic duty by losing money in the upcoming season even without signing any big free agents.

The idea that fans should be praised or commended for not supporting their team is utter garbage, of course. I still make the trip to Oakland to see the Sox when they come to NoCal, just as I used to drive to Anaheim to see the Sox at least once a year when I lived in Arizona. No one should ever be called stupid for supporting their team.

And if you were paying attention, I didn't didn't allege the White Sox payroll situation was about the fans not supporting the team. I wrote that the problem that led to the current situation was management making a huge signing mistake.

By the way, I stand by what I wrote a year ago. It the White Sox had acquired Nate Schierholtz to play right in 2011 instead of signing Adam Dunn, they would have had a better lineup and a better defensive outfield. Events over the last 12 months have proven me right. I am surprised I continue to be ridiculed over it.

kufram
12-17-2011, 04:34 AM
Ok, let me get this straight:

Kenny spent all he could last year, got "corpseball" as the result.

Kenny has begun to move the talent THAT HE CAN MOVE.

Brooks as well as Kenny and others with the Sox have stated the fans didn't deserve this, and as an organization they need to win fans back.

So, if they can't move the talent that is weighing the team down; and they "disconcern" themselves from a discussion about winning the fans back; what precisely do you want them to do?

And as far as creativity; creating words like "disconcern" illustrates who really has the creative mind here.

I was going to post something similar to this pages ago but didn't think it worth getting embroiled in such a silly argument. This kind of sensible posting is what I came to WSI for. I was as disappointed as anyone last year and I would not have spent money to watch it and sometimes I didn't watch it on mlbtv and that was virtually free!

I imagine there are some fans of every team that think there is a formula that, if followed, wins a World Series and just can't get their head around the fact that no one at the top is paying any attention to them because they know the answers.

Do I think the White Sox should be better more consistently? Yes. Is there a simple way to make that happen? I doubt it. Do I think it is because the management of the team blame the fans? Silly argument.

Frontman
12-17-2011, 08:55 PM
I was going to post something similar to this pages ago but didn't think it worth getting embroiled in such a silly argument. This kind of sensible posting is what I came to WSI for. I was as disappointed as anyone last year and I would not have spent money to watch it and sometimes I didn't watch it on mlbtv and that was virtually free!

I imagine there are some fans of every team that think there is a formula that, if followed, wins a World Series and just can't get their head around the fact that no one at the top is paying any attention to them because they know the answers.

Do I think the White Sox should be better more consistently? Yes. Is there a simple way to make that happen? I doubt it. Do I think it is because the management of the team blame the fans? Silly argument.

Well, we are all subject to emotions getting the best of us; as I have in the past. I still stand by the fact Kenny's arrogance when it comes to fans annoys the livin' bejezzus out of me.

However, beating that dead horse won't get moves made. And yeah, Kenny doesn't give a crap what Frontman on WSI thinks of his attitude. NOR SHOULD HE.

His job is to put together a winning team. That job is now tougher due to moves made in the past. However, the past IS the past. Right now, the future looks pretty bleak for a season or two for the Sox. Then again, some of the talent brought here/brought up might turn out to be well above and beyond what anyone thought they would be and the Sox might be in it come October.

Who knows. All I know is that next week is Christmas, we've got snow on the ground, and we're a few months away from pitchers and catchers reporting.

In the meantime, time to enjoy life.

JC456
12-18-2011, 05:01 PM
The idea that White Sox management is punishing fans after years of spending money, even on players teams demanded, without winning fan support is ridiculous.

If anything, White Sox have been guilty of listening too much to fans. Fans wanted Dunn, whose signing was celebrated (for reasons I could not understand at the time), but not with the purchase of season tickets. "All in" was supposed to have a double meaning. It was alluding to the fact that the team was spending its money in the poker vernacular. It also was supposed to suggest that all White Sox fans support the team. It didn't work that way.

Next year's salary restrictions are an inevitability, not a punishment.
Spending money just to say you spent money is hardly smart business. IMO, the Sox don't spend money well. You can disagree with me and that's fine. Doesn't mean some of us don't think they spend money smart. And so you know, I don't mind they didn't counter offer the Buehrle deal. I'm glad they didn't, he wasn't worth that money. Smart money for that one. Yeah! However, the Santos deal has me totally scratching my head. That wasn't much off of the payroll and to me, didn't make any sense. It made them worse than the corpseball year.

So, if you feel not getting better isn't a smack at the fans, then that's your feeling. But not going after free agents tells me the fans don't deserve those types of players and that is due to the park not being full. So because you didn't come, you don't get rewarded.

And what I've been trying to say and not well, is that if it were my business, I'd be trying to figure out how to fill my stadium. Instead they're already betting the fans won't show. And again, to me that's giving up and a defeatest attitude. Just saying. And, maybe they don't read these message boards, but, maybe they do. So shame on the Sox for not thinking Sox fans deserve a good quality team.

From the movie field of dreams, "if you build it they will come". This build it is a good team!

JC456
12-18-2011, 05:07 PM
Ok, let me get this straight:

Kenny spent all he could last year, got "corpseball" as the result.

Kenny has begun to move the talent THAT HE CAN MOVE.

Brooks as well as Kenny and others with the Sox have stated the fans didn't deserve this, and as an organization they need to win fans back.

So, if they can't move the talent that is weighing the team down; and they "disconcern" themselves from a discussion about winning the fans back; what precisely do you want them to do?

And as far as creativity; creating words like "disconcern" illustrates who really has the creative mind here.
I want and expect for them to figure out how to bring fans to the park. That's what they get paid for, not me. Bringing more elvis impersonators in isn't the answer. The answer is good ball players. And, they are out there.

fusillirob1983
12-18-2011, 05:48 PM
I want and expect for them to figure out how to bring fans to the park. That's what they get paid for, not me. Bringing more elvis impersonators in isn't the answer. The answer is good ball players. And, they are out there.

They have figured out how to bring fans to the park: Winning. They know that is the key. They know, other than the team up north, and similar to pretty much every other team in the big 4 sports, winning is the key be bringing fans to the park. There have been people in the organization over the last several years that have said they know winning will bring the fans.

They have figured it out (it being what brings fans to the park), but last year the players didn't execute the plan as expected. Players have been coming out and saying it was their failure last year (Peavy, Thornton). I'm pretty sure none of the players turned around and said to Sox management and said "Hey here's your money back you paid us, just pay it to us this year if we play up to expectations."

To me, it seems like their new plan to bring fans to the park, MAYBE NOT THIS SEASON, BUT IN THE LONG TERM, would be to cut payroll of some of these guys that haven't fully developed like they hoped, so they are trying to trade these known commodities that have value but are not perennial all stars (Danks/Floyd/Quentin) for something that may be younger, cheaper and have value in the future. It appears their plan, based on things that have been discussed in the paper and things that have been stated by KW, is that they're looking to build a winning team long-term. I think Kenny's proven he's not just some puppet of Reinsdorf (if anyone you should be upset with Reinsdorf because he's in charge of the money). Kenny has clearly showed dating back to 2003 or so that if he thinks he has a move that will add to payroll and could lead to more WINS he will go to Jerry and get approval to ADD TO PAYROLL. At times, prior to these moves, attendance wasn't doing much of anything resembling fans showing up to the park. At the end of 2004, Maggs and Frank were out, the Sox lost 7 in a row and Toriiiii running over Jamie Burke deflated any momentium we had going into the second half of that season. Attendance was slowing down in September because the Sox were out of it. The following offseason Kenny shed some larger contracts and spread the payroll around among more players, but payroll increased from 2004 to 2005 as well. Where was the punishment to the fans that offseason?

They really dumped a lot of money into the team this year, and attendance really dropped after a dreadful performance. I think they are acting within their financial means at this point.

Do you really think they're sitting there over the offseason going "Those damn fans didn't show up last year! Well we'll show them!"

or

Do you think they are thinking of the best way to eventually get a winning team on the field, put a plan together that thinks beyond the next 10 months? MAYBE NOT A 90 WIN TEAM THIS YEAR, but in a year or two. That is their realistic situation at this point. I would have liked Buehrle back, and Pujols to be signed, and, and a number of other free agents. I'd like Dunn/Rios/Peavy out of here assuming they'll continue performing like last year. I am upset that the Sox are being held back by those unmovable contracts taking up a large portion of payroll. I am upset that those are holding them back, however, I understand that's is the reason they're not spending more.

That money's gone. I am pretty sure the trees surrounding U.S. Cellular Field don't have money growing from them.

Frontman
12-18-2011, 06:05 PM
I want and expect for them to figure out how to bring fans to the park. That's what they get paid for, not me. Bringing more elvis impersonators in isn't the answer. The answer is good ball players. And, they are out there.

So, making tickets affordable to bring in more attendance isn't a good idea then?

It's a balance between the two, quality and entertainment dollar. Right now, besides Paulie; its hard to say there is a "fan friendly" star on this roster. Yes, Danks, Beckham, and Alexei are likeable; but they aren't the stars or star players of this team. Peavy, Rios, Dunn, and Quentin are star CALIBER players, but none of them are very approachable/likeable. And none of them are producing to the level of being a featured "star" on the team."

It's a slippery slope; and the Sox have in the past done that balancing act well, but it will take time to rebuild.

And, who precisely is "out there" that you'd like to bring to the Sox that equals automatic wins?

JC456
12-18-2011, 06:40 PM
They have figured out how to bring fans to the park: Winning. They know that is the key. They know, other than the team up north, and similar to pretty much every other team in the big 4 sports, winning is the key be bringing fans to the park. There have been people in the organization over the last several years that have said they know winning will bring the fans.

They have figured it out (it being what brings fans to the park), but last year the players didn't execute the plan as expected. Players have been coming out and saying it was their failure last year (Peavy, Thornton). I'm pretty sure none of the players turned around and said to Sox management and said "Hey here's your money back you paid us, just pay it to us this year if we play up to expectations."

To me, it seems like their new plan to bring fans to the park, MAYBE NOT THIS SEASON, BUT IN THE LONG TERM, would be to cut payroll of some of these guys that haven't fully developed like they hoped, so they are trying to trade these known commodities that have value but are not perennial all stars (Danks/Floyd/Quentin) for something that may be younger, cheaper and have value in the future. It appears their plan, based on things that have been discussed in the paper and things that have been stated by KW, is that they're looking to build a winning team long-term. I think Kenny's proven he's not just some puppet of Reinsdorf (if anyone you should be upset with Reinsdorf because he's in charge of the money). Kenny has clearly showed dating back to 2003 or so that if he thinks he has a move that will add to payroll and could lead to more WINS he will go to Jerry and get approval to ADD TO PAYROLL. At times, prior to these moves, attendance wasn't doing much of anything resembling fans showing up to the park. At the end of 2004, Maggs and Frank were out, the Sox lost 7 in a row and Toriiiii running over Jamie Burke deflated any momentium we had going into the second half of that season. Attendance was slowing down in September because the Sox were out of it. The following offseason Kenny shed some larger contracts and spread the payroll around among more players, but payroll increased from 2004 to 2005 as well. Where was the punishment to the fans that offseason?

They really dumped a lot of money into the team this year, and attendance really dropped after a dreadful performance. I think they are acting within their financial means at this point.

Do you really think their sitting there over the offseason going "Those damn fans didn't show up last year! Well we'll show them!"

or

Do you think they are thinking of the best way to eventually get a winning team on the field, put a plan together that thinks beyond the next 10 months? MAYBE NOT A 90 WIN TEAM THIS YEAR, but in a year or two. That is their realistic situation at this point. I would have liked Buehrle back, and Pujols to be signed, and, and a number of other free agents. I'd like Dunn/Rios/Peavy out of here assuming they'll continue performing like last year. I am upset that the Sox are being held back by those unmovable contracts taking up a large portion of payroll. I am upset that those are holding them back, however, I understand that's is the reason they're not spending more.

That money's gone. I am pretty sure the trees surrounding U.S. Cellular Field don't have money growing from them.
So in your world, not contending is ok for 2012? I'm sure that will fill the seats even at a discount seat price. Ha! Sounds like the white flag deal idea all over again. We know how that worked.

Sorry, I don't get it!

asindc
12-18-2011, 06:53 PM
So in your world, not contending is ok for 2012? I'm sure that will fill the seats even at a discount seat price. Ha! Sounds like the white flag deal idea all over again. We know how that worked.

Sorry, I don't get it!

That much is obvious.

TomBradley72
12-18-2011, 08:16 PM
They have figured out how to bring fans to the park: Winning. They know that is the key. They know, other than the team up north, and similar to pretty much every other team in the big 4 sports, winning is the key be bringing fans to the park. There have been people in the organization over the last several years that have said they know winning will bring the fans.

They have figured it out (it being what brings fans to the park), but last year the players didn't execute the plan as expected. Players have been coming out and saying it was their failure last year (Peavy, Thornton). I'm pretty sure none of the players turned around and said to Sox management and said "Hey here's your money back you paid us, just pay it to us this year if we play up to expectations."

To me, it seems like their new plan to bring fans to the park, MAYBE NOT THIS SEASON, BUT IN THE LONG TERM, would be to cut payroll of some of these guys that haven't fully developed like they hoped, so they are trying to trade these known commodities that have value but are not perennial all stars (Danks/Floyd/Quentin) for something that may be younger, cheaper and have value in the future. It appears their plan, based on things that have been discussed in the paper and things that have been stated by KW, is that they're looking to build a winning team long-term. I think Kenny's proven he's not just some puppet of Reinsdorf (if anyone you should be upset with Reinsdorf because he's in charge of the money). Kenny has clearly showed dating back to 2003 or so that if he thinks he has a move that will add to payroll and could lead to more WINS he will go to Jerry and get approval to ADD TO PAYROLL. At times, prior to these moves, attendance wasn't doing much of anything resembling fans showing up to the park. At the end of 2004, Maggs and Frank were out, the Sox lost 7 in a row and Toriiiii running over Jamie Burke deflated any momentium we had going into the second half of that season. Attendance was slowing down in September because the Sox were out of it. The following offseason Kenny shed some larger contracts and spread the payroll around among more players, but payroll increased from 2004 to 2005 as well. Where was the punishment to the fans that offseason?

They really dumped a lot of money into the team this year, and attendance really dropped after a dreadful performance. I think they are acting within their financial means at this point.

Do you really think their sitting there over the offseason going "Those damn fans didn't show up last year! Well we'll show them!"

or

Do you think they are thinking of the best way to eventually get a winning team on the field, put a plan together that thinks beyond the next 10 months? MAYBE NOT A 90 WIN TEAM THIS YEAR, but in a year or two. That is their realistic situation at this point. I would have liked Buehrle back, and Pujols to be signed, and, and a number of other free agents. I'd like Dunn/Rios/Peavy out of here assuming they'll continue performing like last year. I am upset that the Sox are being held back by those unmovable contracts taking up a large portion of payroll. I am upset that those are holding them back, however, I understand that's is the reason they're not spending more.

That money's gone. I am pretty sure the trees surrounding U.S. Cellular Field don't have money growing from them.

What I think is that overall the senior management team is incompetent and they've "run their course"- it's time for new leadership.

They are publicly stating they are rebuilding while they have almost no ability to reduce the payroll due to the bad contracts- so they will have the attendance and ratings of a rebuilding team- but still a very high payroll due to bloated contracts.

KW has no evidence in his lengthy resume as a senior manager that he should be architect of a long term rebuilding- anything is possible- but the resume for that type of work just isn't there.

Yuck-

Fenway
12-18-2011, 08:37 PM
This link shows you what Dan Duquette is up to in Baltimore

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2011/12/18/red_sox_have_more_competition_than_ever/?page=5


The same column outlines what Theo is doing...

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2011/12/18/red_sox_have_more_competition_than_ever/?page=3


The bottom line is you HAVE to rebuild the farm system - and I don't think the White Sox have the people to do it. I hope I am wrong.

Brian26
12-18-2011, 08:46 PM
Management has been opening up its checkbook for years. In fact, ownership will be doing what you consider their civic duty by losing money in the upcoming season even without signing any big free agents.

This is absolutely 100% correct. This has in fact been generally the case for the past 11 years. I don't understand the irrational, blind hate towards current ownership or the refusal to acknowledge the contract commitments they've been willing to take on. The two that come to mind immediately are the Contreras and Garland contract extensions after 2005 for 3 years/$30 million each...this, after they re-signed Konerko and committed back-end money towards Thome after the Phillie money ran out. Buehrle and Dye we re-signed in 2007. Freddy Garcia was immediately offered a contract extension after the trade in 2004.

Brian26
12-18-2011, 08:55 PM
KW has no evidence in his lengthy resume as a senior manager that he should be architect of a long term rebuilding- anything is possible- but the resume for that type of work just isn't there.


The bottom line is you HAVE to rebuild the farm system - and I don't think the White Sox have the people to do it. I hope I am wrong.

Kenny Williams built the farm system that won the 2005 World Series. I don't understand why he couldn't do it again.

The pieces he traded were just as important as the guys like Rowand, Crede and Buehrle that came up through the Sox system.

WhiteSox5187
12-18-2011, 09:07 PM
Kenny Williams built the farm system that won the 2005 World Series. I don't understand why he couldn't do it again.

The pieces he traded were just as important as the guys like Rowand, Crede and Buehrle that came up through the Sox system.

By my count there were four players who were integral players on the 2005 White Sox that came up through their system and all of those guys were drafted before Kenny became GM. Since Kenny has been GM I am hard pressed to think of any player the White Sox developed. His two most successful players he has drafted are Chris Sale who pitched ten innings in the minors and Gio Gonzalez who he traded away.

Daver
12-18-2011, 09:26 PM
By my count there were four players who were integral players on the 2005 White Sox that came up through their system and all of those guys were drafted before Kenny became GM. Since Kenny has been GM I am hard pressed to think of any player the White Sox developed. His two most successful players he has drafted are Chris Sale who pitched ten innings in the minors and Gio Gonzalez who he traded away.

Before Kenny was the GM he was in charge of the minor league system, the farm system went into a tailspin after he left that position to take the GM role.

Fenway
12-18-2011, 09:33 PM
By my count there were four players who were integral players on the 2005 White Sox that came up through their system and all of those guys were drafted before Kenny became GM. Since Kenny has been GM I am hard pressed to think of any player the White Sox developed. His two most successful players he has drafted are Chris Sale who pitched ten innings in the minors and Gio Gonzalez who he traded away.

Billy Beane is shopping Gio and most GM's are asking why did KW trade him TWICE.

To be fair - JR handcuffed KW on who he could draft because of Boras.

Brian26
12-18-2011, 09:54 PM
By my count there were four players who were integral players on the 2005 White Sox that came up through their system and all of those guys were drafted before Kenny became GM. Since Kenny has been GM I am hard pressed to think of any player the White Sox developed. His two most successful players he has drafted are Chris Sale who pitched ten innings in the minors and Gio Gonzalez who he traded away.

Doesn't matter. You missed my point. The guys Kenny drafted could have been developed here, but he chose to move them to build parts of the World Series team.

Two examples:

Aaron Miles - 2000 Rule-5 draft pick by Kenny....traded for Juan Uribe straight-up. Jon Rauch - '99 draft pick by Kenny...traded for Carl Everett.

The entire "develop your own players" concept has to consider the guys you trade away for parts you need for the current team.

gosox41
12-18-2011, 11:13 PM
Billy Beane is shopping Gio and most GM's are asking why did KW trade him TWICE.

To be fair - JR handcuffed KW on who he could draft because of Boras.

Won't that change now with the new draft rules in the CBA? I haven't studied it completely.


Bob

gosox41
12-18-2011, 11:15 PM
By my count there were four players who were integral players on the 2005 White Sox that came up through their system and all of those guys were drafted before Kenny became GM. Since Kenny has been GM I am hard pressed to think of any player the White Sox developed. His two most successful players he has drafted are Chris Sale who pitched ten innings in the minors and Gio Gonzalez who he traded away.


Dont' forget Daniel Hudson--traded away.


Bob

Fenway
12-18-2011, 11:43 PM
How much of a role did Wilder have?

The Wilder saga is something the Chicago media doesn't want to touch.

Why?

fusillirob1983
12-19-2011, 01:06 AM
So in your world, not contending is ok for 2012? I'm sure that will fill the seats even at a discount seat price. Ha! Sounds like the white flag deal idea all over again. We know how that worked.

Sorry, I don't get it!

I never said it was okay. In my last post, I actually said I was upset as to why they can't spend this year. I followed that by saying "I understand the reason they are not spending this year." Below is my exact quote to address your interpretation of what I said, although, that would be an inaccurate interpretation. Just because I understand their reason for doing something doesn't mean I am content with it.

I also never said that "not contending will fill the seats at a discount price." I'm sure the Sox won't expect "the seats to be filled" either". I am guessing they'll think lowering prices will help minimize the decrease in attendance that would occur if they kept prices at the same levels as last year. I specifically went out of my way to mention that they appear to be planning more for the long term.

From my last post:
"I am upset that the Sox are being held back by those unmovable contracts taking up a large portion of payroll. I am upset that those are holding them back, however, I understand that's is the reason they're not spending more."

Also from my last post:
"They have figured out how to bring fans to the park: Winning. They know that is the key. They know, other than the team up north, and similar to pretty much every other team in the big 4 sports, winning is the key be bringing fans to the park. There have been people in the organization over the last several years that have said they know winning will bring the fans.

They have figured it out (it being what brings fans to the park), but last year the players didn't execute the plan as expected. Players have been coming out and saying it was their failure last year (Peavy, Thornton). I'm pretty sure none of the players turned around and said to Sox management and said "Hey here's your money back you paid us, just pay it to us this year if we play up to expectations."

"To me, it seems like their new plan to bring fans to the park, MAYBE NOT THIS SEASON, BUT IN THE LONG TERM, would be to cut payroll of some of these guys that haven't fully developed like they hoped, so they are trying to trade these known commodities that have value but are not perennial all stars (Danks/Floyd/Quentin) for something that may be younger, cheaper and have value in the future. It appears their plan, based on things that have been discussed in the paper and things that have been stated by KW, is that they're looking to build a winning team long-term.""

fusillirob1983
12-19-2011, 01:10 AM
What I think is that overall the senior management team is incompetent and they've "run their course"- it's time for new leadership.

They are publicly stating they are rebuilding while they have almost no ability to reduce the payroll due to the bad contracts- so they will have the attendance and ratings of a rebuilding team- but still a very high payroll due to bloated contracts.

KW has no evidence in his lengthy resume as a senior manager that he should be architect of a long term rebuilding- anything is possible- but the resume for that type of work just isn't there.

Yuck-

I agree with this. In theory, it appears they'd like to take a step back and plan long-term (which is not KW's wheelhouse whatsoever), but those contracts are currently preventing them from beginning an effective rebuilding effort at the moment - also preventing them from Kenny doing what he's done the past several years and only focus a few months ahead of the present.

JC456
12-19-2011, 01:39 PM
I never said it was okay. In my last post, I actually said I was upset as to why they can't spend this year. I followed that by saying "I understand the reason they are not spending this year." Below is my exact quote to address your interpretation of what I said, although, that would be an inaccurate interpretation. Just because I understand their reason for doing something doesn't mean I am content with it.

I also never said that "not contending will fill the seats at a discount price." I'm sure the Sox won't expect "the seats to be filled" either". I am guessing they'll think lowering prices will help minimize the decrease in attendance that would occur if they kept prices at the same levels as last year. I specifically went out of my way to mention that they appear to be planning more for the long term.

From my last post:
"I am upset that the Sox are being held back by those unmovable contracts taking up a large portion of payroll. I am upset that those are holding them back, however, I understand that's is the reason they're not spending more."

Also from my last post:
"They have figured out how to bring fans to the park: Winning. They know that is the key. They know, other than the team up north, and similar to pretty much every other team in the big 4 sports, winning is the key be bringing fans to the park. There have been people in the organization over the last several years that have said they know winning will bring the fans.

They have figured it out (it being what brings fans to the park), but last year the players didn't execute the plan as expected. Players have been coming out and saying it was their failure last year (Peavy, Thornton). I'm pretty sure none of the players turned around and said to Sox management and said "Hey here's your money back you paid us, just pay it to us this year if we play up to expectations."

"To me, it seems like their new plan to bring fans to the park, MAYBE NOT THIS SEASON, BUT IN THE LONG TERM, would be to cut payroll of some of these guys that haven't fully developed like they hoped, so they are trying to trade these known commodities that have value but are not perennial all stars (Danks/Floyd/Quentin) for something that may be younger, cheaper and have value in the future. It appears their plan, based on things that have been discussed in the paper and things that have been stated by KW, is that they're looking to build a winning team long-term.""
okay, maybe I overstated your position, but was also focusing on the obvious in your comments. They will not fill the stadium next year and I don't think they expect a winning program for next year.

So, if they already know they're not going to have a winning season before they even get in the gate, they may not get enough fans in to pay for this upcoming year. Then what? You pointed out they're looking to build a winning team long-term. There is no such thing as the future accept for in the movies. While their competition is building now, the Sox will be like KC yesterday. Long term is what KC wanted to do, heck Detroit even tried that a few years ago and abandoned it. KC may never recover, however, they are finally getting better by trades, not just getting younger.

And for last year, I recognize players did not produce, but that doesn't mean a team should shrug their shoulders and say oh well. I doubt many teams would survive their fan base doing that. Yet that's what our friendly Sox club did. I think the Kenny and Ozzie show was about each of them trying to prove a point to the other and the heck about the fan base. That's just me!

kittle42
12-19-2011, 04:52 PM
There is no such thing as the future accept for in the movies.

Best sentence in this thread - it says so much.

Frontman
12-19-2011, 05:04 PM
Best sentence in this thread - it says so much.

And here I thought we have a future. Guess there's no point in living!

I'm still waiting for the enlightened JC456 to tell us all who is "out there" for the Sox to go get to make 2012 a winning season.

hi im skot
12-19-2011, 05:04 PM
Best sentence in this thread - it says so much.

Seriously. It made my head explode.

soltrain21
12-19-2011, 05:19 PM
Best sentence in this thread - it says so much.

I still am waiting for whatever I'm supposed to accept.

kittle42
12-19-2011, 06:10 PM
And here I thought we have a future. Guess there's no point in living!

I'm still waiting for the enlightened JC456 to tell us all who is "out there" for the Sox to go get to make 2012 a winning season.

Well, after they missed out on Pujols, they obviously need to go for Fielder.

kittle42
12-19-2011, 06:11 PM
I still am waiting for whatever I'm supposed to accept.

Apparently not a rebuilding year in 2012. Hey-oh!

Frontman
12-19-2011, 08:19 PM
Well, after they missed out on Pujols, they obviously need to go for Fielder.

Since an overweight power hitter worked out oh-so well last season........


Hey-oh!!!

spawn
12-19-2011, 08:33 PM
I still am waiting for whatever I'm supposed to accept.
He was channeling his inner Yoda...

TommyJohn
12-19-2011, 08:39 PM
I still am waiting for whatever I'm supposed to accept.

He was channeling his inner Yoda...

No future there is. Accept it you must.

Frontman
12-19-2011, 09:11 PM
No future there is. Accept it you must.

Yoda,

Does that mean I can check out a million books at the library and never return them? With no future, how can anything be considered "late?"

fusillirob1983
12-19-2011, 10:29 PM
okay, maybe I overstated your position, but was also focusing on the obvious in your comments. They will not fill the stadium next year and I don't think they expect a winning program for next year.

So, if they already know they're not going to have a winning season before they even get in the gate, they may not get enough fans in to pay for this upcoming year. Then what? You pointed out they're looking to build a winning team long-term. There is no such thing as the future accept for in the movies. While their competition is building now, the Sox will be like KC yesterday. Long term is what KC wanted to do, heck Detroit even tried that a few years ago and abandoned it. KC may never recover, however, they are finally getting better by trades, not just getting younger.

And for last year, I recognize players did not produce, but that doesn't mean a team should shrug their shoulders and say oh well. I doubt many teams would survive their fan base doing that. Yet that's what our friendly Sox club did. I think the Kenny and Ozzie show was about each of them trying to prove a point to the other and the heck about the fan base. That's just me!

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/03/2012-mlb-free-agents.html

Please select players from the list at this link and let me know which ones are that appealing. Also, please list how much you'd pay each of them. I knew this wasn't the greatest year for free agency beyond Pujols/Fielder/Buehrle/CJ Wilson (who was overpaid), but wow, this year's free agent crop has quite a few players that I wouldn't want.

If you have potential realistic trades that you think can help the team 2012,please list those too. I guess there's all kinds of possibilities, and personally I'm open to suggestions. Not to completely change the subject, but I am curious your thoughts because apparently the Sox have a defeatist attitude and are sitting on a pile of cash twiddling their thumbs.

JC456
12-27-2011, 03:22 PM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/03/2012-mlb-free-agents.html

Please select players from the list at this link and let me know which ones are that appealing. Also, please list how much you'd pay each of them. I knew this wasn't the greatest year for free agency beyond Pujols/Fielder/Buehrle/CJ Wilson (who was overpaid), but wow, this year's free agent crop has quite a few players that I wouldn't want.

If you have potential realistic trades that you think can help the team 2012,please list those too. I guess there's all kinds of possibilities, and personally I'm open to suggestions. Not to completely change the subject, but I am curious your thoughts because apparently the Sox have a defeatist attitude and are sitting on a pile of cash twiddling their thumbs.
Well I'll tell you what, when the Sox start paying me to do their job, I will do as you ask.

And I have no idea how much money the sox have in their till and I doubt you do either. I'll go back to what I stated before, sitting around doing nothing is a defeatist attitude. How to invest said cash you may be referring to is again something someone else on staff ought to be doing.

I do know one thing, if they don't want to fill the stadium, doing nothing will accomplish that feat!

One thing I would look at is bringing in investors with money to build a pile of cash to use to bring in better talent. And, maybe the seats fill up! Just saying though.

Lip Man 1
12-27-2011, 03:33 PM
Some of the individuals on the Board of Directors are some of the richest people in the U.S.

Lip

JC456
12-27-2011, 03:35 PM
Some of the individuals on the Board of Directors are some of the richest people in the U.S.

Lip
So you're saying the money is there?

kittle42
12-27-2011, 04:09 PM
So you're saying the money is there?

Money is always there - if an owner or group of owners has absolutely no concern with losing money and is only in this for the fun of it.

While some owners might be fans, ownership is not fandom, no matter how much fans would prefer it that way.

Frontman
12-27-2011, 04:30 PM
Well I'll tell you what, when the Sox start paying me to do their job, I will do as you ask.

And I have no idea how much money the sox have in their till and I doubt you do either. I'll go back to what I stated before, sitting around doing nothing is a defeatist attitude. How to invest said cash you may be referring to is again something someone else on staff ought to be doing.

I do know one thing, if they don't want to fill the stadium, doing nothing will accomplish that feat!

One thing I would look at is bringing in investors with money to build a pile of cash to use to bring in better talent. And, maybe the seats fill up! Just saying though.

So, basically, you said you've got a secret plan to fight inflation; but there really isn't a secret plan, right?

http://static.tvfanatic.com/files/bradley-whitford-on-west-wing_268x210.jpg

Or, in other words; you're just blowing off steam, without any real idea on how to fix these issues, right?



http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/danny-concannon

JC456
12-27-2011, 04:32 PM
Money is always there - if an owner or group of owners has absolutely no concern with losing money and is only in this for the fun of it.

While some owners might be fans, ownership is not fandom, no matter how much fans would prefer it that way.
Why esle would an owner or a group of owners be in it if it wasn't to produce a winner? Isn't that the objective? Wouldn't winning make you money?

Now, again, I would be expecting that these owners are having conferences on what to do for 2012. I doubt they're saying, let's don't do anything to get better because we don't want to see fans in the seats. Investing money is for the opportunity to gain profit. Not filling the stadium seems counter productive to that end.

Lip Man 1
12-27-2011, 04:39 PM
There's an old saying, "to make money, you spend money..." which is something the Sox did not do or understand for a long time.

The Sox have spent money, a lot of it, the past few seasons, the problem is they haven't spent it wisely.

That I think falls more on the G.M. than ownership no?

Lip

JC456
12-27-2011, 04:41 PM
So, basically, you said you've got a secret plan to fight inflation; but there really isn't a secret plan, right?

http://static.tvfanatic.com/files/bradley-whitford-on-west-wing_268x210.jpg

Or, in other words; you're just blowing off steam, without any real idea on how to fix these issues, right?



http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/danny-concannon
did I say I know how to fight inflation? no I didn't, thank you very much. It's not my job to fix the White Sox issues, and if their management doesn't know how to fix their own issues then they are in real trouble.

This thread is about a White Sox executive, Mr. Boyer, trying to spin that a ho hum roster would be likely due to the economy and the economy would be why Sox fans won't come out to the park. IMO, I don't believe the economy alone would keep a White Sox fan out of the park, a ho hum team would gaurantee that though because I know no one who would pay to watch bad baseball. The fans will fill the park if a quality team is on the field good or bad economy.

JC456
12-27-2011, 04:43 PM
There's an old saying, "to make money, you spend money..." which is something the Sox did not do or understand for a long time.

The Sox have spent money, a lot of it, the past few seasons, the problem is they haven't spent it wisely.

That I think falls more on the G.M. than ownership no?

Lip
Exactly, and the next question is why isn't our GM being held accountable for spending badly? And I don't mean by the fans, but the owners. BTW, I wouldn't give a bad GM more money either if I were the owner and felt he spent the money badly. So does that mean you keep the GM and put out a ho hum team? In my world, I'd get a new GM and see what that new GM could do with the money. But, that's my world.

Lip Man 1
12-27-2011, 04:54 PM
JR is very loyal (perhaps to a fault) and I suspect at his age simply does not want to go through the process of hiring a new G.M.

And remember he runs the franchise, he has it in his contract that he operates the day to day running of the franchise and does not have to consult the other owners when doing so.

Lip

JC456
12-27-2011, 05:05 PM
JR is very loyal (perhaps to a fault) and I suspect at his age simply does not want to go through the process of hiring a new G.M.

And remember he runs the franchise, he has it in his contract that he operates the day to day running of the franchise and does not have to consult the other owners when doing so.

Lip
Agree. It is what it is. That's why I'm not re-uping my partial season ticket package, because I don't expect JR to do anything. Too bad though. Bad football followed by bad baseball. Go Hawks and Bulls I guess.

KenBerryGrab
12-27-2011, 05:23 PM
Well, this member of the fan base made a concrete decision. Instead of bringing the family on our annual July Sox game trip, this year I invested in Bulls-Bucks at the Bradley Center.

kittle42
12-27-2011, 06:21 PM
And I backed out of my portion of my group's full-season ticket plan.

I did so because the secondary market for tickets made it financially unwise for me to re-up.

Frontman
12-27-2011, 06:45 PM
did I say I know how to fight inflation? no I didn't, thank you very much. It's not my job to fix the White Sox issues, and if their management doesn't know how to fix their own issues then they are in real trouble.

This thread is about a White Sox executive, Mr. Boyer, trying to spin that a ho hum roster would be likely due to the economy and the economy would be why Sox fans won't come out to the park. IMO, I don't believe the economy alone would keep a White Sox fan out of the park, a ho hum team would gaurantee that though because I know no one who would pay to watch bad baseball. The fans will fill the park if a quality team is on the field good or bad economy.

Uh-huh. 2008 they weren't really filling the seats until late into the season.

So, if you're done, you're done. I take it you'll be avoiding talking about the Sox, as well as the interpretations of anything a member of the Sox organization says moving forward, right?

I mean, why bother talking if you've given up on this team, right?

gosox41
12-27-2011, 10:01 PM
There's an old saying, "to make money, you spend money..." which is something the Sox did not do or understand for a long time.

The Sox have spent money, a lot of it, the past few seasons, the problem is they haven't spent it wisely.

That I think falls more on the G.M. than ownership no?

Lip


Lip, you nailed it. Which brings up another old phrase: 'Don't throw good money after bad."

Time to rebuild.


Bob

Noneck
12-27-2011, 10:10 PM
That I think falls more on the G.M. than ownership no?

Lip

Unless ownership was really the one behind some of the bad moves.

russ99
12-27-2011, 10:56 PM
Every season 29 teams are unhappy with how the season turned out, that's baseball. Only 8 teams make the postseason each year, unless you spend like the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies and soon to be Angels and Rangers you can't expect to be top 8 every year.

My issue with the organization isn't so much about the bad season, and the financial implications that has on the 2012 Sox, but much more how they are going about it.

There's still an undercurrent blaming the fans, there's still this hubris (from KW) that they are smarter than everyone else, there's still a vastly bigger focus on presentation and saving face over doing the right thing, and marketing has failed to bring to potential fans the #2 selling point (behind winning) - the experience of seeing a game at the Cell, which unjustly has been bad mouthed in the press.

How hard would it be for Jerry and Kenny to apologize to the fans for how things didn't work out, not worry about how things look and level with us and ask us to hang in with the plan (if they have one)...

Maybe we'll see that at Sox Fest, but I won't hold my breath.

DumpJerry
12-27-2011, 11:10 PM
This thread is so removed from reality. It cracks me up every time I read it.

fusillirob1983
12-28-2011, 01:36 AM
This thread is so removed from reality. It cracks me up every time I read it.

This post will be my new desktop background.

JC456
12-28-2011, 09:34 AM
Uh-huh. 2008 they weren't really filling the seats until late into the season.

So, if you're done, you're done. I take it you'll be avoiding talking about the Sox, as well as the interpretations of anything a member of the Sox organization says moving forward, right?

I mean, why bother talking if you've given up on this team, right?
Sorry my friend, nice try!

JC456
12-30-2011, 10:15 AM
And here I thought we have a future. Guess there's no point in living!

I'm still waiting for the enlightened JC456 to tell us all who is "out there" for the Sox to go get to make 2012 a winning season.
:scratch: I see that reality on here is that some believe the fans choose the players. LOL.

Milw
12-30-2011, 01:32 PM
Why esle would an owner or a group of owners be in it if it wasn't to produce a winner? Isn't that the objective? Wouldn't winning make you money?

Not at all true. Ask the Pirates ownership (or Tribune Co.) if winning and revenues are correlated. Some very awful franchises turn a nice profit every season, and some excellent ones just scrape by. Winning is undoubtedly nice, from an owner's perspective, but it has little to do with making money.

DonnieDarko
12-30-2011, 01:49 PM
Not at all true. Ask the Pirates ownership (or Tribune Co.) if winning and revenues are correlated. Some very awful franchises turn a nice profit every season, and some excellent ones just scrape by. Winning is undoubtedly nice, from an owner's perspective, but it has little to do with making money.

To be fair, isn't one of the main reasons the Pirates turn a profit because of revenue sharing?

Milw
12-30-2011, 02:14 PM
To be fair, isn't one of the main reasons the Pirates turn a profit because of revenue sharing?
It is, for sure. But that's the rule in place. And in any event, the Cubs have long proved that you don't have to win to make money. I understand that they're an atypical case, but nevertheless. Winning and profits have less correlation than many people realize.

kittle42
12-30-2011, 02:58 PM
:scratch: I see that reality on here is that some believe the fans choose the players. LOL.

The reality is that some fans don't understand at all how franchises make money.

DumpJerry
12-30-2011, 03:24 PM
Why esle would an owner or a group of owners be in it if it wasn't to produce a winner? Isn't that the objective? Wouldn't winning make you money?
For over ten years now, the Royals have been the best team in terms of making money for the owners.

Low overhead, receipt of luxury tax money, television contract...it all adds up.

Lip Man 1
12-30-2011, 04:14 PM
The Marlins scored some huge profits as well over the years thanks to revenue sharing.

Lip

kittle42
12-30-2011, 05:28 PM
For over ten years now, the Royals have been the best team in terms of making money for the owners.

Low overhead, receipt of luxury tax money, television contract...it all adds up.

But, but, but.....SIGN PLAYERS AGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!

Frontman
12-30-2011, 06:49 PM
:scratch: I see that reality on here is that some believe the fans choose the players. LOL.

Well, as a so called fan who keeps saying the Sox need to make a move to make 2012 a competitive team, I'm just a fan asking you to put up or shut up. Stop saying you know what the Sox should do; as obviously you don't have a single clue as to what they should do.

Reality is that the Sox has made some bad moves; and it will take TIME for them to get out from behind those moves. In the meantime, some fans will avoid going, while others still will go to the games/watch on TV.

Frankly, I haven't heard you give one solid piece of information other than "The organization is in to make money." Which, really, isn't information at all. It's called common sense. Same reason you go to work, why I go to work, and the rest of us go to work.

The Sox aren't there to win for free. They're in it to MAKE MONEY.

apbaball
12-31-2011, 12:40 PM
To be fair, isn't one of the main reasons the Pirates turn a profit because of revenue sharing?

Yes but revenue sharing provides a disincentive to win. The more revenue you make the less you get. Therefore the Pirates and Royals and Marlins among others have been content to lose evey year and make a sizeable profit; in fact much larger than quite a few winning franchises.

The current revenue sharing system allowed the Phillies, who are one of the largest markets, to get revenue sharing money one season in the mid 2000s. Read some of economist Andrew Zimbalist's books; he talks about the use of actual revenues versus market size in determining revenue sharing dollars. Using actual dollars provides a strong disincentive to win. As he points out, there really is no good reason the Yankees should pay more than the Mets or the Cubs more than the White Sox. Perhaps if the Sox were held to the same standard as the Cubs, they would work harder to build a strong brand.

If you have revenue sharing, those teams should be required to meet a minimum payroll or teams will just sit on the money.

Lip Man 1
12-31-2011, 03:00 PM
APBA:

I agree with your post. Certain owners have no real desire to win, for them 'winning' is how much profit they can clear at the end of the season.

The commissioner also has the right to withhold funds if he feels they aren't being used properly by teams. Because this is Selig however, I wouldn't hold my breath that he'd ever do something like that.

Lip

JC456
01-03-2012, 10:31 AM
Well, as a so called fan who keeps saying the Sox need to make a move to make 2012 a competitive team, I'm just a fan asking you to put up or shut up. "Stop saying you know what the Sox should do"; as obviously you don't have a single clue as to what they should do.

Reality is that the Sox has made some bad moves; and it will take TIME for them to get out from behind those moves. In the meantime, some fans will avoid going, while others still will go to the games/watch on TV.

Frankly, I haven't heard you give one solid piece of information other than "The organization is in to make money." Which, really, isn't information at all. It's called common sense. Same reason you go to work, why I go to work, and the rest of us go to work.

The Sox aren't there to win for free. They're in it to MAKE MONEY.
And I'm telling you that isn't my job! I don't do that for a living so I don't have hours upon hours upon weeks to put something together. Sorry i have a job that already requires I do that for them.

-I want a quality Center Fielder, (Rios is far from Quality)
-a closer that they just gave away
-a quality left/ right fielder (I'm ok with Vicedo in either spot)
-a quality shortstop (Ramirez stinks)

You seem to be rambunctious toward me, but you give the Sox a pass. Why not start asking the Sox management what their intentions are?
I can't do a deal.
I believe the Sox are going to do nothing to improve the team. The team is the reason the fans don't go to the park. And BTW, it is the poor quality of that product that contributes. And if they don't care to fill the seats, then you and I will continue to see poor quality.

To me, by making the statement on this thread, they have no intentions of improving the quality of the team. (for the third time now)

BTW, I never said I knew what to do to improve the team. I said the team was dissinterested in making improvements. Please point out the post I made that statement?

kittle42
01-03-2012, 11:20 AM
And I'm telling you that isn't my job! I don't do that for a living so I don't have hours upon hours upon weeks to put something together. Sorry i have a job that already requires I do that for them.

-I want a quality Center Fielder, (Rios is far from Quality)
-a closer that they just gave away
-a quality left/ right fielder (I'm ok with Vicedo in either spot)
-a quality shortstop (Ramirez stinks)

You seem to be rambunctious toward me, but you give the Sox a pass. Why not start asking the Sox management what their intentions are?
I can't do a deal.
I believe the Sox are going to do nothing to improve the team. The team is the reason the fans don't go to the park. And BTW, it is the poor quality of that product that contributes. And if they don't care to fill the seats, then you and I will continue to see poor quality.

To me, by making the statement on this thread, they have no intentions of improving the quality of the team. (for the third time now)

BTW, I never said I knew what to do to improve the team. I said the team was dissinterested in making improvements. Please point out the post I made that statement?

For someone with better things to do than worry about the White Sox, you sure do seem to worry a lot.

You made a statement of opinion, and were called out on it and asked to back it up with some names. That should not be a tough, time-consuming task for a baseball fan. If your goal is just to spout of uninformed opinion, I will give you credit for at least admitting it.

Example:

"The Sox should get rid of Rios - somebody would take him!"
"I seriously doubt anyone wants Alex Rios, unless the Sox would be willing to pay his whole contract, which they won't."
"I don't care - he stinks! Get rid of him!"
"Name one team that would take him while taking on his salary."
"... That's not my job!"

asindc
01-03-2012, 12:21 PM
For someone with better things to do than worry about the White Sox, you sure do seem to worry a lot.

You made a statement of opinion, and were called out on it and asked to back it up with some names. That should not be a tough, time-consuming task for a baseball fan. If your goal is just to spout of uninformed opinion, I will give you credit for at least admitting it.

Example:

"The Sox should get rid of Rios - somebody would take him!"
"I seriously doubt anyone wants Alex Rios, unless the Sox would be willing to pay his whole contract, which they won't."
"I don't care - he stinks! Get rid of him!"
"Name one team that would take him while taking on his salary."
"... That's not my job!"

Kittle42,

I believe it was intended that you ignore the many inconsistencies among the scattershot rants in this thread. From this point forward, just pretend they are not being written, obvious as they are.

kufram
01-03-2012, 01:43 PM
Am I missing something here? Viciedo is a quality left/right fielder but Ramirez "stinks" as a shortstop? That simply does not compute.

kittle42
01-03-2012, 01:43 PM
I believe it was intended that you ignore the many inconsistencies among the scattershot rants in this thread. From this point forward, just pretend they are not being written, obvious as they are.

A good piece of advice.

DirtySox
01-03-2012, 01:52 PM
Am I missing something here? Viciedo is a quality left/right fielder but Ramirez "stinks" as a shortstop? That simply does not compute.

You are missing nothing. Alexei is a fantastic fielder and one of the best SS in all of baseball. Put up a 4.9 fWAR last year behind only Tulo and Reyes. He's the absolute least of the White Sox worries.

TDog
01-03-2012, 02:22 PM
You are missing nothing. Alexei is a fantastic fielder and one of the best SS in all of baseball. Put up a 4.9 fWAR last year behind only Tulo and Reyes. He's the absolute least of the White Sox worries.

Alexei Ramirez was a much better shortstop than Sergio Santos was a closer last season. The same could be said if you replaced "last season" with a career timeframe. Ramirez, though, is two years older than Santos.

JC456
01-03-2012, 03:31 PM
For someone with better things to do than worry about the White Sox, you sure do seem to worry a lot.

You made a statement of opinion, and were called out on it and asked to back it up with some names. That should not be a tough, time-consuming task for a baseball fan. If your goal is just to spout of uninformed opinion, I will give you credit for at least admitting it.

Example:

"The Sox should get rid of Rios - somebody would take him!"
"I seriously doubt anyone wants Alex Rios, unless the Sox would be willing to pay his whole contract, which they won't."
"I don't care - he stinks! Get rid of him!"
"Name one team that would take him while taking on his salary."
"... That's not my job!"
Actually, I agreed with the person who started the thread that the Sox management was blaming the Sox fan for the need to rebuild since the seats weren't filled last year.

And we are where we are with this post. I stand behind that initial premise.

Thanks for the guidance. That was never my intent, just wanted to show what I'm thinking and shared since asked twice. I thought that was the purpose of a message board. I guess I was in error here.

If what all of the fans on here want is mediocrity, then they'll definitely have it this year.

As pointed out by Steve Stone, if Ramirez ever covered second on steals like a quality shortstop should, then AJ would have had many more punch outs. But because Ramirez continues to reach for the throw and then tag hurts his team. And, he has trouble turning double plays. But hey, fielding percentage must be the only stat for quality.

One more thing, other teams seem to be able to trade their players to improve their quality, just don't understand why the Sox can't. Unless teams other than San Diego and Toronto won't deal with them.

Frontman
01-03-2012, 03:33 PM
Am I missing something here? Viciedo is a quality left/right fielder but Ramirez "stinks" as a shortstop? That simply does not compute.

You are missing nothing. Alexei is a fantastic fielder and one of the best SS in all of baseball. Put up a 4.9 fWAR last year behind only Tulo and Reyes. He's the absolute least of the White Sox worries.

Never let facts get in the way of a crazy rant. Don't you know that JC has all the answers. If he says Alexei stinks, he must stink, obviously!

Glad I'm not the only one who noticed that little drop from our "too busy to worry" GM-wannabe.


As much as we liked guys like TCQ; he certainly had dropped off since his 2008 season. A decent player, but not an outstanding one. The Sox made a move to get rid of him; I'm all for it.

In hindsight, letting Mark walk was a smart move.

Signing Danks long term is a smart move.

Kenny might not want to call this a full "rebuilding" season; but odds are, that's what it will be. I trust that he'll get the team competitive when he can. In the meantime; we can all wait and see what additional moves/signings he can do to help boost this team.

Frontman
01-03-2012, 03:36 PM
As pointed out by Steve Stone, if Ramirez ever covered second on steals like a quality shortstop should, then AJ would have had many more punch outs. But because Ramirez continues to reach for the throw and then tag hurts his team. And, he has trouble turning double plays. But hey, fielding percentage must be the only stat for quality.


Chicken or egg situation. Alexei might not have to reach for the throw if the ball was thrown more accurately and with greater speed to the proper side of the bag. AJ had the same problem with Uribe; yet nobody points out how bad Uribe was as a shortstop. (Which, he wasn't bad at all.)

TheFrisbee
01-03-2012, 03:39 PM
As pointed out by Steve Stone, if Ramirez ever covered second on steals like a quality shortstop should, then AJ would have had many more punch outs. But because Ramirez continues to reach for the throw and then tag hurts his team. And, he has trouble turning double plays.

If there is one thing that gets on my nerves with Ramirez, it is that he will go out of his way, on practically every play, to avoid any contact at second base, costing the team many outs or missing throws to him.

DirtySox
01-03-2012, 03:41 PM
As pointed out by Steve Stone, if Ramirez ever covered second on steals like a quality shortstop should, then AJ would have had many more punch outs. But because Ramirez continues to reach for the throw and then tag hurts his team. And, he has trouble turning double plays. But hey, fielding percentage must be the only stat for quality.

Hilarious considering Ramirez doesn't even have a stellar fielding percentage considering he gets to so many more balls than your standard SS and can't make the impossible plays on them. Doubly hilarious that one is defending AJ's noodle arm.

Look, Alexei may have some deficiencies but from a value standpoint he's cream of the crop and hardly worth complaining about when there is vitriol to be spit at players like Rios, Dunn, Peavy, and Beckham instead. Thanks for giving me a laugh though, it's been a slow day.

JC456
01-03-2012, 03:42 PM
Chicken or egg situation. Alexei might not have to reach for the throw if the ball was thrown more accurately and with greater speed to the proper side of the bag. AJ had the same problem with Uribe; yet nobody points out how bad Uribe was as a shortstop. (Which, he wasn't bad at all.)
Ah but that isn't the problem, the problem is he reaches for them all!

JC456
01-03-2012, 03:45 PM
If there is one thing that gets on my nerves with Ramirez, it is that he will go out of his way, on practically every play, to avoid any contact at second base, costing the team many outs or missing throws to him.
Yep!

JC456
01-03-2012, 03:49 PM
Hilarious considering Ramirez doesn't even have a stellar fielding percentage considering he gets to so many more balls than your standard SS and can't make the impossible plays on them. Doubly hilarious that one is defending AJ's noodle arm.

Look, Alexei may have some deficiencies but from a value standpoint he's cream of the crop and hardly worth complaining about when there is vitriol to be spit at players like Rios, Dunn, Peavy, and Beckham instead. Thanks for giving me a laugh though, it's been a slow day.
Well I don't think so! The other thing he does that is irritating to not only me, but others I've talked with, is his standing at home plate and taking the first pitch like he is Babe Ruth or A-Rod.

JC456
01-03-2012, 03:50 PM
Well I don't think so! The other thing he does that is irritating to not only me, but others I've talked with, is his standing at home plate and taking the first pitch like he is Babe Ruth or A-Rod.
He needs to respect the game!

kittle42
01-03-2012, 04:19 PM
He needs to respect the game!

OK - this is just an internet persona, right?

doublem23
01-03-2012, 04:25 PM
OK - this is just an internet persona, right?

Alexei's not Chicago Tough enough!

SephClone89
01-03-2012, 04:27 PM
Well I don't think so!.

Terrific rebuttal!

shenk16
01-03-2012, 04:38 PM
He needs to respect the game!

I agree! How dare he take pitches and work the count?! Not to mention, he jumps out of the way of runners sliding into 2B, when he should be standing in there getting his knee torn apart!

kittle42
01-03-2012, 04:52 PM
Alexei Ramirez' swinging % on the first pitch is at or above the MLB average, per Baseball Reference.

Guess a lot of guys are acting like "Babe Ruth or A-Rod," except that the stats show that the A-Rod part of that also makes no sense.

Aesero
01-03-2012, 04:59 PM
He needs to respect the game!
Uh, forgot to change account or just insane?

Frontman
01-03-2012, 07:59 PM
Uh, forgot to change account or just insane?

Where's Jim Rome's "uh oh" soundrop when you REALLY need it? ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Smooth JC456. Nice way to reveal you're a mult account!!!!

Brian26
01-03-2012, 08:11 PM
He needs to respect the game!

Bye bye.

Frontman
01-03-2012, 08:20 PM
Back to the original point; the Sox know the fan base can be fickle; and will do their best to put out a product worth seeing. Right now, on Jan 3; we can't say if this team is a bust or not. If the season started today, sure; it would be a very difficult team to watch with no set rotation, closer, and pure unknowns in the outfield.

I've been frustrated in recent years by Kenny; but I have faith he'll do what he can to shore up the team's shortcomings.