PDA

View Full Version : Durham is seeking...


Jerry_Manuel
07-19-2002, 10:22 AM
From the SouthTown (http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/191sd5.htm):

Durham, who'll earn $6.3 million this season, is reportedly seeking a three-year deal worth $24 million-$25 million.

guillen4life13
07-19-2002, 11:17 AM
as much as I like ray durham... this demand is a bit crazy. 8 million/year for someone who has never hit .300, and just had an off year is a bit too much.

Randar68
07-19-2002, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
From the SouthTown (http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/191sd5.htm):



*****!!!!!!!!!!

Kermie! Where are you man? Yeah, this would be SO worth it!


:kermit

*****!

LongDistanceFan
07-19-2002, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
From the SouthTown (http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/191sd5.htm):

bye bye ray, now to find the right deal

NUKE_CLEVELAND
07-19-2002, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
From the SouthTown (http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/191sd5.htm):



Is he serious?? LOL!! If he's worth 8 mil a year then they need to just go ahead & give Konerko & Maggs a Payrod type salary then because they both are 3 times the player Sugar Ray is.

:ray "SHOW ME THE MONEY!"

:payrod " I tought him everything he knows!"

Jerry_Manuel
07-19-2002, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
*****!!!!!!!!!!

Kermie! Where are you man? Yeah, this would be SO worth it!

*****!

I was hoping for a respone like this! :)

Randar68
07-19-2002, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by NUKE_CLEVELAND

:payrod " I tought him everything he knows!"

except how to spell! LOL! j/k

Paulwny
07-19-2002, 12:14 PM
As I said before, he's in for a rude awakening.

TheBigHurt
07-19-2002, 12:43 PM
he's crazy.....trade him before the deadline

NUKE_CLEVELAND
07-19-2002, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


except how to spell! LOL! j/k

:payrod "Hey now! They pay me all that money to play baseball not to spell."

:)

PaleHoseGeorge
07-19-2002, 01:03 PM
The price of flesh is going up. It has done so on an unbroken upward climb every year since the early 1970's. The only exception was for three years in the mid-80's when the owners colluded. They were convicted, paid damages, and the upward price of salaries continued.

I suggest everyone here complaining about Durham's asking price state their preference. Either you come down four-square for making this team competitive--and paying for the talent that will cost a lot more than the $53 million Reinsdorf is strangling the franchise with now. Or you own up to being simply happy with tolerating more and more and more mediocrity--all in the name of saving the chairman a few bucks.

You're idiots if you think Reinsdorf is going to build a winner by shedding payroll. Did you learn NOTHING these past five years?

I can't even believe we're having a discussion on this point.

Jerry_Manuel
07-19-2002, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I suggest everyone here complaining about Durham's asking price state their preference. Either you come down four-square for making this team competitive--and paying for the talent that will cost a lot more than the $53 million Reinsdorf is strangling the franchise with now. Or you own up to being simply happy with tolerating more and more and more mediocrity--all in the name of saving the chairman a few bucks.

You're idiots if you think Reinsdorf is going to build a winner by shedding payroll. Did you learn NOTHING these past five years?

I can't even believe we're having a discussion on this point.

I'm not complaining about his asking price. If someone is stupid enough to give him 8 million, that's their problem not mine.

Believe me, I'm not happy with how much money he spends. Nor am I happy with the "first class organization" he has built. The fact of the matter is that until he's gone, nothing is going to change. The fans won't show so he won't pay. Simple as that.

voodoochile
07-19-2002, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
The price of flesh is going up. It has done so on an unbroken upward climb every year since the early 1970's. The only exception was for three years in the mid-80's when the owners colluded. They were convicted, paid damages, and the upward price of salaries continued.

I suggest everyone here complaining about Durham's asking price state their preference. Either you come down four-square for making this team competitive--and paying for the talent that will cost a lot more than the $53 million Reinsdorf is strangling the franchise with now. Or you own up to being simply happy with tolerating more and more and more mediocrity--all in the name of saving the chairman a few bucks.

You're idiots if you think Reinsdorf is going to build a winner by shedding payroll. Did you learn NOTHING these past five years?

I can't even believe we're having a discussion on this point.

A bit harsh, but in general I agree. Like it or not, salaries are going up, and have been for a long time. In today's marketplace, $8 million is not expensive for an AS second baseman who has the abilities to be a 20/30 man and hit for a respectable average. I don't think the Sox will meet Ray's asking price anyway so everyone get ready for the "Wee Willie" show at second base. I hope he is ready, and I hope he is as good as people are saying, because Ray has been a very solid player for the Sox. If Willie can't lead off, he is a 9 hole hitter. If Ray doesn't lead off, he hits 2nd, 5th or 6th and performs well in those slots. Like it or not, that is a big dropoff...

Might as well break out the commercials from a few years ago, because next year is looking more and more like "The Kids can Play 2". Hope they can catch lightning in a bottle twice, but I doubt it...

Jerry_Manuel
07-19-2002, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I don't think the Sox will meet Ray's asking price anyway so everyone get ready for the "Wee Willie" show at second base.

Might as well break out the commercials from a few years ago, because next year is looking more and more like "The Kids can Play 2". Hope they can catch lightning in a bottle twice, but I doubt it...

Nor should they. If their going to rebuild again, don't keep veterans like Durham around. Which is why I'd like to see Frank moved, but that's another story.

Sure bring on the kids, I don't mind them one bit.

duke of dorwood
07-19-2002, 01:28 PM
He isnt gonna get that , without home run and rbi totals. The offense he puts up doesnt warrant his poor defense. He actually could end up on the North side.

Vsahajpal
07-19-2002, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
He isnt gonna get that , without home run and rbi totals. The offense he puts up doesnt warrant his poor defense. He actually could end up on the North side.

I doubt it, they've got Hill and Bellhorn at bargain basemant salary, and the Cubs insist they'll target Rolen.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-19-2002, 01:54 PM
My point is simple: Ray Durham can ASK for whatever he wants. What he GETS is whatever the highest bidder AGREES to pay him.

I'm sure if Jerry Reinsdorf posted here, he would make the case (as many of you already have) why Ray isn't worth his asking price. I wouldn't begrudge our esteemed chairman his own point of view.

But you guys are SOX FANS! It's not your bottom line being enhanced. It's not your chance for seeing a winner in the future enhanced either. It's simply your chance (again) to buy into the false myth Reinsdorf sold you five years ago, too.

He isn't going to field a winner. Even if he got lucky (like he did in 2000) and won a division crown, he would still expect YOU to pay the additional cost of putting the team over the top to a championship. Am I the only one here who remembers him raising the price of tickets and parking in Fall, 2000 before trading for David Wells? Wells is gone, his financial obligation paid, the payroll cut, but guess what? The ticket prices and parking fees are as high as ever.

Get a clue!

Players cost more. They'll cost even more next year, and the year after that. If Reinsdorf wants to make the case why he can't afford it, fine. But why any of you would BELIEVE HIM, is a complete mystery to me.

Jerry_Manuel
07-19-2002, 02:04 PM
But you guys are SOX FANS! It's not your bottom line being enhanced. It's not your chance for seeing a winner in the future enhanced either. It's simply your chance (again) to buy into the false myth Reinsdorf sold you five years ago, too.

I'm not buying into anything. If the payroll can only be 53 million or thereabouts, the team cannot afford to pay Durham 8-10 million. As long as he is the owner the payroll is staying at the level whether people buy into his myth or not.

He isn't going to field a winner. Even if he got lucky (like he did in 2000) and won a division crown, he would still expect YOU to pay the additional cost of putting the team over the top to a championship.

I know he won't field a winner, I've come to accept that fact, others haven't. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but if he bumps the payroll up to 70 million, he expects to get at least 70 million in revenue back. That's where the whole fans coming out to the park thing comes from.

Maybe I'm just an idiot.

dougs78
07-19-2002, 02:04 PM
First of all, there is absolutely no way anyone will pay Ray Durham that sort of money. It just can't be..hes not that good.

As far as George's argument, I do have to say that I agree with him on the surface, but there is more to it. Salaries do go up, but the average team is still only paying their team about 60 million. Now, the few things we can all agree on is that there is no way you are going to get to the world series, let alone win it, unless you are paying your team upwards of 100 million or over. I think we can also agree on the fact that the sox do not have a 100 million $ payroll in their future.

So that being the case, we need to look at our 60 million and spend it wisely. To me, spending more than 1/8 of that on Ray Durham is not wise. Now, if Ray can live with 4-5 million, then i think we can consider it. But if its 8 million then we have to be smarter than the teams that would pay him that much. Maybe they can afford to be frivolous, but we obviously can't. An example of this is when we gave Valentin that 5 million/year contract. Sure he was a fan favorite and sure he hit some homers, but the fact of the matter is that he probably had the 2 best seasons of his life and we are now wasting 5 million on him instead of 300,000 on Crede (who may well be be better anyway). i have nothign against Valentin, (other than is high price tag relative to results), which is exactly the issue I take with Durham.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, any team that loses a key player to free agency without receiving a subsequent player who is at least as good or better ARE NOT TRULY CONTENDERS. These teams will not go the world series and certainly will not win it. That being said, there are only a few teams that can afford to overpay to keep their team together (Yanks and Braves). So until that system is fixed this will continue to be teh case....and to answer your question George, Yes until this system is fixed....I am forced into accepting mediocrity as the only real alternative. I fail to see how signing Durham for an overinflated price would do anymore than exacerbate an already defective system.

andytheclown
07-19-2002, 02:25 PM
I really do not understand you guys. Durham is making 6.3 mil this year. He is looking for 8 mil for three years. Three years is not a long time! If he was looking for 5-7 years, yes I would walk away. He is looking for a raise, which he will receive from someone. He is one of the best 2nd baseman in the AL. Do you really think that he is going to agree to a paycut??

Reinsdorf wants everyone to think that the players are greedy and overpaid. That is how he is able to sell the "kids" instead. YOU SHOULD EXPECT MORE! We have enough kids on this team now! Atleast one will be starting next year, probably two. Odds are that Harris or Hummel will never be as good as Ray right now, then why dump him? So Reinsdorf can put more money in his own pocket? Lets look at a couple of numbers:

81 games, 22k avg/gm, $20 avg ticket price = $35640000
81 games, 22k avg/gm, $10 spent per person = $17820000
(by the way that is two beers!)

total on attendance and two beers per person = $53460000.

What is our payroll again? If we do not resign Clayton we can offer Ray 3 years at 7.3 mil. We still have enough to give Paulie a raise of 3.5 mil!

I also have not included parking, or souveniers. I would bet one of these pays the rest of the employees with cash left over.

Do not let Reinsdorf off the hook and accept a rebuilding program four years after the last one!!!

PaleHoseGeorge
07-19-2002, 02:27 PM
If the system is the source of the problem, how do you explain a smaller market like Arizona affording to do it? Or Dallas/Fort Worth paying A-Rod? Or a big-market like the Sox skimping? Or a media conglomerate, like the Cubune, stumbling along with ALL the advantages imaginable (big market, corporate ownership, huge national TV reach, and tourist destination ballpark)--and still not "afford" to field a winner?

Look, the price of playing MLB poker is going up. Big conglomerates like Disney, Nintendo, Fox, and Turner are deciding the price. If anything, Steinbrenner is a small-time owner throwback who has leveraged the hell out his #1 market to squeeze every dollar possible towards fielding a winner. Why get pissed about that? He's TRYING to win. You can't seriously think someone like Reinsdorf has anything in common with him.

What I'm hearing from the rest of you are excuses for letting Reinsdorf keep fleecing you and your fellow Sox Fans. Sure, I would expect him to make the case on his own behalf, but what reason can you offer for supporting him, too?

If Reinsdorf can't afford to play poker, let him cash in his chips, and get the hell out. He and his ownership group will do just fine on their paltry $20 million investment. That's the only rational position for a Sox Fan to take. That's my point in a nutshell.

He wouldn't be the first owner who can't afford to play the game anymore, and Lord knows he won't be the last either. But letting him get away with selling more lies just doesn't sit with me. Sorry.

Iwritecode
07-19-2002, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
A bit harsh, but in general I agree. Like it or not, salaries are going up, and have been for a long time. In today's marketplace, $8 million is not expensive for an AS second baseman who has the abilities to be a 20/30 man and hit for a respectable average. If Ray doesn't lead off, he hits 2nd, 5th or 6th and performs well in those slots.

That's basically what I've been thinking. What are some other second basemen around the league making anyway? If we're going to rebuild and bring some of the kids up, that's fine, but you can't dump ALL the veterans just because they deserve a raise. I bet almost anything someone will be paying Ray somewhere around 8 million next year.

Jerry_Manuel
07-19-2002, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by andytheclown
I really do not understand you guys. Durham is making 6.3 mil this year. He is looking for 8 mil for three years. Three years is not a long time!

Reinsdorf wants everyone to think that the players are greedy and overpaid. That is how he is able to sell the "kids" instead. YOU SHOULD EXPECT MORE! We have enough kids on this team now! Atleast one will be starting next year, probably two. Odds are that Harris or Hummel will never be as good as Ray right now, then why dump him? So Reinsdorf can put more money in his own pocket? What is our payroll again? If we do not resign Clayton we can offer Ray 3 years at 7.3 mil. We still have enough to give Paulie a raise of 3.5 mil!

Do not let Reinsdorf off the hook and accept a rebuilding program four years after the last one!!!

I can't make this anymore clear then I already have. Reinsdorf isn't going to spend more than 55 or so million. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

The team is going to rebuild yet again, so resigning Ray is pointless. I expect a world series appearance every now and then, doesn't mean I'm going to get it. Clayton won't be coming back. You'll have to pay Paul somewhere around 5 to 6 million next year. I'm also guessing they'll try and lock up Buehrle as well.

People have been bashing him for years about his payroll limits. He's not going to change his methods, so I don't see how were letting him off the hook.

FarWestChicago
07-19-2002, 02:41 PM
I suggest everyone here complaining about Durham's asking price state their preference.[/B]A second basemen with more range than me? :smile:

PaleHoseGeorge
07-19-2002, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


I can't make this anymore clear then I already have. Reinsdorf isn't going to spend more than 55 or so million. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

The team is going to rebuild yet again, so resigning Ray is pointless. I expect a world series appearance every now and then, doesn't mean I'm going to get it. Clayton won't be coming back. You'll have to pay Paul somewhere around 5 to 6 million next year. I'm also guessing they'll try and lock up Buehrle as well.

People have been bashing him for years about his payroll limits. He's not going to change his methods, so I don't see how were letting him off the hook.

Read what you wrote, Jerry. You're letting Reinsdorf off the hook by accepting that is all he is going to do. That's YOU accepting his behavior.

By accepting it, you're resigned to whatever fate he gives Sox Fans. That's bull****. As a fan, I never agreed to swallow the lies the owner told me. I agreed to support the team. There is a WORLD of difference in your position and mine.

I'm not taking losing sitting down, resigned to years more of it. If Reinsdorf wants to make the case he can't afford to pay for a winner, I'm going to make the case why Reinsdorf shouldn't be the owner.

Does that make it any clearer?

PaleHoseGeorge
07-19-2002, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
A second basemen with more range than me? :smile:

Point taken. Ray has his flaws. Personally, I would like someone who uses his head for more than a hatrack, but that's just me.

:)

delben91
07-19-2002, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
If Reinsdorf wants to make the case he can't afford to pay for a winner, I'm going to make the case why Reinsdorf shouldn't be the owner.

Does that make it any clearer?

Yeah, it makes it clearer. Unfortunately, short of something drastic happening, so long as he can continue to pay the players he does have, and pay them on time, we have no real control over getting rid of JR. Short of boycotting the games. But even doing that, it couldn't ever really be organized enough of a boycott to hurt him enough financially to have to fully give up the team.

dougs78
07-19-2002, 02:48 PM
If the system is the source of the problem, how do you explain a smaller market like Arizona affording to do it? Or Dallas/Fort Worth paying A-Rod? Or a big-market like the Sox skimping? Or a media conglomerate, like the Cubune, stumbling along with ALL the advantages imaginable (big market, corporate ownership, huge national TV reach, and tourist destination ballpark)--and still not "afford" to field a winner?

I think the discrepancy comes in the definition of "afford." I honestly do believe that Arizona and Texas are spending money out of their owners pockets. while Colangelo has done it more intelligently than Hicks I still don't think thats the right way. As for the Cubs, they are an anomoly and I can't even explain their existence. :smile:

Seriously though, in my opinino thats not a smart business practice. If anything I woudl spend my money from the bottom up if I were an owner. So I don't blame Jerry or other owners for not overpaying.


heres what I really don't understand. In the threads about Labor situation we have many posters saying that, "ITs the owners fault, they keep overpaying for players that don't merit that pay...if they just stopped, the system would work" then we get to the threads about keeping our free agents and suddenly, "why would we not pay more money to keep Ray Durham around?"

I don't understand how we can simultaneously advocate and refute the same practice.

Iwritecode
07-19-2002, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Read what you wrote, Jerry. You're letting Reinsdorf off the hook by accepting that is all he is going to do. That's YOU accepting his behavior.

By accepting it, you're resigned to whatever fate he gives Sox Fans. That's bull****. As a fan, I never agreed to swallow the lies the owner told me. I agreed to support the team. There is a WORLD of difference in your position and mine.

I'm not taking losing sitting down, resigned to years more of it. If Reinsdorf wants to make the case he can't afford to pay for a winner, I'm going to make the case why Reinsdorf shouldn't be the owner.

Does that make it any clearer?

George, I think I understand your point, but what are we as fans supposed to do to let JR know that we are sick of him being a cheapskate? Not go to the games? That just gives him all the more reason to not spend money. Go to the games and spend money? Then he'll think we are happy with what he's providing us with. What is it we can do?

andytheclown
07-19-2002, 02:52 PM
Jerry, I do not understand your point. I said that after dumping Clayton, and giving Ray 1mil more, and Paulie, 3.5 mil more, we are AT THE SAME PAYROLL AS THIS YEAR!

What is the reasoning behind allowing Reinsdorf to cut payroll? Unless I am crazy, attendance will be the same as 2001. Where is the justification for a payroll cut? If you also rid yourselves of Lofton and Graffy's salaries and add Jimenez and Harris, what is the savings there?

Jimenez can play 2nd or short. Valentin will be your starter at short, Harris your starter in center. Valentin will not be resigned after next year. Total salary should not escalate, but we will be a better team than if we start all rookies and save 18 mil! This savings is going in his pocket not towards anything else!

With the talent we have on this team, we should not be going into next year with rookies at 3rd, short, and 2nd!

Do not forget about Alomar, he makes a good buck too!

We can get rid of Lofton, Alomar, Graffinino, and Clayton to free up enough cash to give raises to those that deserve it. A full scale "lets start at least four rookies next year, because we cannot afford anything more" is complete bullsh*t. As George has said, if Reinsy cannot afford to be in the game anymore, get out. Stop crying poor while driving home in your mercedes. If you cannot maintain your payroll from year to year, especially when attendance has not dropped, you should not be around anymore.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-19-2002, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


George, I think I understand your point, but what are we as fans supposed to do to let JR know that we are sick of him being a cheapskate? Not go to the games? That just gives him all the more reason to not spend money. Go to the games and spend money? Then he'll think we are happy with what he's providing us with. What is it we can do?

Good question. I'm not sure I have a good answer. A lively debate like this one is a good start. Debunking the myths Reinsdorf invents to justify yet another rebuilding project seems pretty important to me.

The greater the public chatter openly challenging Reinsdorf's silly assertions, the better off we Sox Fans will be. Once the sports-blab radio personalities hear enough of these sentiments, they'll take up the cause themselves and the public outcry will increase exponentially, making it even harder for Reinsdorf's minions to execute his phoney-baloney plans.

The point is not to go along with the b.s. For example, if Dave Wills wants to tell everyone why JR will never sell the Sox, toss it back at him and ask why we Sox Fans should go along with it? Believe me, that makes a difference. Wills isn't in the business to piss off Sox Fans.

I'm not advocating boycotting the team, or anything stupid like that. Just turn up the VOLUME for reasons why Reinsdorf needs to get the hell out of baseball and sell the Sox.

As a Sox Fan, you've got the facts on your side.

Jerry_Manuel
07-19-2002, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Read what you wrote, Jerry. You're letting Reinsdorf off the hook by accepting that is all he is going to do. That's YOU accepting his behavior.

By accepting it, you're resigned to whatever fate he gives Sox Fans. That's bull****. As a fan, I never agreed to swallow the lies the owner told me. I agreed to support the team. There is a WORLD of difference in your position and mine.

I'm not taking losing sitting down, resigned to years more of it. If Reinsdorf wants to make the case he can't afford to pay for a winner, I'm going to make the case why Reinsdorf shouldn't be the owner.

Does that make it any clearer?

I don't like how he operates, and I can't change how he runs this team. So accepting it, is all that I can do at this point.

I understand where your coming from. You've seen far more losing from this outfit then I have.

baggio202
07-19-2002, 03:15 PM
durham over his 7 years here has put up some amazingly comnsistent numbers...this year he is on pace for setting personal high's in OBP and SB's....quality 2nd baseman are so hard to find nowadays..very few teams have a 2nd baseman putting up durhma's numbers....i find it hard to believe that whichever 2nd baseman we have to replace durham would be close to being as good as he is...cause if harris or hummel have the ability to be that good somebody would have come calling with a to good to be true trade for on of them...

8 million over 3 years???...durham will get that easy...the dodgers, red sox and braves are all looking for 2nd baseman..and none of those three are built on the cheap...the only thing hampering durham is the strike and what effect that might have on salaries...if that plays out with no real changes as far as salary restraints..ray will get what he is asking for...and we get the kids can play part 2...

RedPinStripes
07-19-2002, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by baggio202
durham
8 million over 3 years???...durham will get that easy...the dodgers, red sox and braves are all looking for 2nd baseman..and none of those three are built on the cheap...the only thing hampering durham is the strike and what effect that might have on salaries...if that plays out with no real changes as far as salary restraints..ray will get what he is asking for...and we get the kids can play part 2...

That's why I'm sure we'll see the "kids part 2" next year. I doubt Hummel and Harris are going to sit or be moved with JR knowing he can have a second baseman for 0ver 7 mill less a year.

Iwritecode
07-19-2002, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


I don't like how he operates, and I can't change how he runs this team. So accepting it, is all that I can do at this point.

I understand where your coming from. You've seen far more losing from this outfit then I have.

Do not go gently into that good night.

Rage rage against the dying of the light...

PaleHoseGeorge
07-19-2002, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


I don't like how he operates, and I can't change how he runs this team. So accepting it, is all that I can do at this point.

I understand where your coming from. You've seen far more losing from this outfit then I have.

You know baseball owners do sell their teams. In fact, most teams are bought and sold every 5-10 years, mostly to take advantage of tax benefits to the owners.

Reinsdorf has owned the White Sox for 21 YEARS. To my knowledge, the only owner who has played the game significantly longer than him is Steinbrenner, who bought the Yankees in 1973.

I'm not asking for much. Publicly state that you wish Jerry Reinsdorf would sell the White Sox. Do it whenever the opportunity presents itself. Express how much you are a fan of the team, and how absolutely critical it is that the Sox get new ownership if fans like you are ever to see a winner for Chicago and the South Side. Give as many reasons as you possibly can. If possible, do it on the radio. :smile:

That's not so hard, is it?

RedPinStripes
07-19-2002, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


You know baseball owners do sell their teams. In fact, most teams are bought and sold every 5-10 years, mostly to take advantage of tax benefits to the owners.

Reinsdorf has owned the White Sox for 21 YEARS. To my knowledge, the only owner who has played the game significantly longer than him is Steinbrenner, who bought the Yankees in 1973.

I'm not asking for much. Publicly state that you wish Jerry Reinsdorf would sell the White Sox. Do it whenever the opportunity presents itself. Express how much you are a fan of the team, and how absolutely critical it is that the Sox get new ownership if fans like you are ever to see a winner for Chicago and the South Side. Give as many reasons as you possibly can. If possible, do it on the radio. :smile:

That's not so hard, is it?

If there is a strike, we can only hope for JR to sell through this one.

Pete Ward
07-19-2002, 03:28 PM
Tony Amonte - itis:

Over blown self value :(:

Paulwny
07-19-2002, 03:29 PM
The biggest problem is the damn lease agreement. As long as JR keeps his payroll ~ where it presently stands he makes money no matter how bad attendance becomes, although his bean counters must have a figure were losses will occur.
There's no incentive to increase payroll when your guranteed a profit.

Jerry_Manuel
07-19-2002, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Do not go gently into that good night.

Rage rage against the dying of the light...

Thanks, Code. I have problems expressing my thoughts into message board. Not to mention the fact that I'm wrong most of the time to.


Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
That's not so hard, is it?

No, its' not hard. I'll leave it at that, I've got more thoughts on that, but it wouldn't come out well.

Iwritecode
07-19-2002, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Pete Ward
Tony Amonte - itis:

Over blown self value :(:

Bret Boone is making 8 million this year. Looking at their numbers so far this year, Ray is worth more than Bret...

Iwritecode
07-19-2002, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
The biggest problem is the damn lease agreement. As long as JR keeps his payroll ~ where it presently stands he makes money no matter how bad attendance becomes, although his bean counters must have a figure were losses will occur.
There's no incentive to increase payroll when your guranteed a profit.

Well, that and the fact that we would have to convince how many more investors to sell something that they keep making money from? I hate to say it but as much as we dislike JR and probably no matter what we do, we are going to be stuck with him for quite awhile... :whiner:

voodoochile
07-19-2002, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


Well, that and the fact that we would have to convince how many more investors to sell something that they keep making money from? I hate to say it but as much as we dislike JR and probably no matter what we do, we are going to be stuck with him for quite awhile... :whiner:

Yep, He likes the ego feed he gets off of being an MLB owner and he is making a tidy profit, not to mention all the venture capital he can raise at any time by just pointing to the increase in value the Sox have seen since he bought them for whatever the ridiculous price was he bought them for 20+ years ago ($20 million?). Why would he sell? He'd threaten to move them long before he would ever give up his spotlight in the media...

Iwritecode
07-19-2002, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Yep, He likes the ego feed he gets off of being an MLB owner and he is making a tidy profit, not to mention all the venture capital he can raise at any time by just pointing to the increase in value the Sox have seen since he bought them for whatever the ridiculous price was he bought them for 20+ years ago ($20 million?). Why would he sell? He'd threaten to move them long before he would ever give up his spotlight in the media...

I guess that leaves us with only one option then...

:sopranos

Hey Mr. Reisndorf, how well can you swim?

Dadawg_77
07-19-2002, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


Do not go gently into that good night.

Rage rage against the dying of the light...

damn you code, now I have that poem stuck in my head, and I can't think of the damn name. Thanks, thanks a alot.
:)

ps. if you you could help me with the name it would be nice :D:

Dadawg_77
07-19-2002, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


I guess that leaves us with only one option then...

:sopranos

Hey Mr. Reisndorf, how well can you swim?

Before you do that, lets get Congress to raise the estate tax to make sure the team doesn't end up with his kids.

Cheryl
07-19-2002, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77


damn you code, now I have that poem stuck in my head, and I can't think of the damn name. Thanks, thanks a alot.
:)

ps. if you you could help me with the name it would be nice :D:

It's called Do Not Go Gently Into that Dark Night. Dylan Thomas. It's about the Giants moving out of NY. Here's the whole thing:

http://www.poets.org/poems/poems.cfm?prmID=1159

FarWestChicago
07-19-2002, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Point taken. Ray has his flaws. Personally, I would like someone who uses his head for more than a hatrack, but that's just me.

:) Damn, we are both getting demanding. :smile:

Pete Ward
07-19-2002, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


Bret Boone is making 8 million this year. Looking at their numbers so far this year, Ray is worth more than Bret...

Then whats the problem? Pay good ole' Ray $8 mil a year.

Personally FWIW, I dont think he's worth half that. But I dont think Boone is worth $8 mil either. In fact I dont think ANYONE is worth $8 mil.

I WANT them to strike! I want an end to this crap. Fix it once and for all.

Fix:
Free Agency
DH or Not
Contraction
Drugs/steroids
World wide- Rookie draft salary/bonus
Arbitration
Body Armour
Salary Cap
Revenue Sharing
Salary certainty
what else?????

I want it fixed or Im not coming back!

Daver
07-19-2002, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Pete Ward


Then whats the problem? Pay good ole' Ray $8 mil a year.

Personally FWIW, I dont think he's worth half that. But I dont think Boone is worth $8 mil either. In fact I dont think ANYONE is worth $8 mil.

I WANT them to strike! I want an end to this crap. Fix it once and for all.

Fix:
Free Agency
DH or Not
Contraction
Drugs/steroids
World wide- Rookie draft salary/bonus
Arbitration
Body Armour
Salary Cap
Revenue Sharing
Salary certainty
what else?????

I want it fixed or Im not coming back!

Will you be saying the same thing when the players win again?

I have asked others and now I will ask you,why should the players fix the problems the owners created for themselves?

You have a problem with the arbitration process?
The owners fought tooth and claw for it when free agency was introduced.

You have a problem with free agency?
The owners are responsible for bidding on the players,the players have nothing to do with it.

The owners created this mess for themselves,and it has been proven in court,now all of a sudden the MLBPA should bail the owners out?

Why?

SOXSINCE'70
07-19-2002, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
The price of flesh is going up. It has done so on an unbroken upward climb every year since the early 1970's. The only exception was for three years in the mid-80's when the owners colluded. They were convicted, paid damages, and the upward price of salaries continued.

I suggest everyone here complaining about Durham's asking price state their preference. Either you come down four-square for making this team competitive--and paying for the talent that will cost a lot more than the $53 million Reinsdorf is strangling the franchise with now. Or you own up to being simply happy with tolerating more and more and more mediocrity--all in the name of saving the chairman a few bucks.

You're idiots if you think Reinsdorf is going to build a winner by shedding payroll. Did you learn NOTHING these past five years?

I can't even believe we're having a discussion on this point.

You're a man after my own 40 year old heart.Brilliant post.I'll say it again: NOTHING CHANGES UNTIL REINSDORK SELLS THE TEAM!!

Pete Ward
07-19-2002, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by daver


Will you be saying the same thing when the players win again?
YES

I have asked others and now I will ask you,why should the players fix the problems the owners created for themselves?
Im asking both sides to sit down and work together to fix a business that can work. The NFL and NBA have managed to work together for the good of the game.

You have a problem with free agency?
I have a problem with baseball (owners and players not working together to solve their problems). Free agancy is a fact of life in sports. How FA works for all parties can be mutually beneficial.

The owners created this mess for themselves,and it has been proven in court,now all of a sudden the MLBPA should bail the owners out?
I never asked the players to fix anything. I asked for "Baseball" to FIX everything. That includes the players and owners. If the players go on Strike, fine with me. If the owners lock them out, fine with me.

I dont want a half ass settlement. Fix it once and for all.

Its time to fix what is wrong with the game. GREED on everyones part. Its not a game, its a business. Have both sides work together for the betterment of the business as a whole. Its not about pointing fingers at the owners or the players. Its time to fix a broken business.

MisterB
07-19-2002, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
If anything, Steinbrenner is a small-time owner throwback who has leveraged the hell out his #1 market to squeeze every dollar possible towards fielding a winner. Why get pissed about that? He's TRYING to win. You can't seriously think someone like Reinsdorf has anything in common with him.

I had to change my underwear after reading this one...http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/lol.gif

The fact is the Yankees & Mets are sharing a market with a metro population of over 21 million, the Sox and Cubs share a market of just over 9 mil. Under the current system, the differences in market size significantly affects revenue from any local source (gate, local media, parking/concession), and local revenues are the bulk of most clubs' revenue. According to the MLB figures from last year (yeah I know, but it's all we have to go on for now) the Yankees spent more on players than the Sox made in total revenue ($117M vs. $111M) And guess what, even by those iffy 'official' numbers, the Yankees still made a profit. Steinbrenner isn't paying out of his own pocket for any of this. The Sox paid out 60% of their revenue in player salaries. The Yankees spent less than 50% on theirs, and were still averaging over $4.5M per player on the 25-man roster. The Yankees aren't neccessarily more efficient than the Sox - NY metro has twice the population of Chicago metro, and the Yankees made twice the revenue of the Sox.

Steinbrenner and Reinsdorf do have one thing in common - they're both trying to stay within budget. King George spends $120M on players because he can afford to. Yes, he's trying to win, but he's in a position to do it without breaking the bank. It's not just that JR's a tightwad. And even bringing in new ownership doesn't change the revenue limitations under the current system.

That having been said, I'd rather see JR spend seriously into the red (can we say Diamondbacks?) to actually put a Championship team on the field, and then have him sell out to recoup his losses. Then at least we'd have someone new to complain about... :smile:

Daver
07-19-2002, 10:51 PM
Quote from Pete Ward
Will you be saying the same thing when the players win again?
YES

I have asked others and now I will ask you,why should the players fix the problems the owners created for themselves?
Im asking both sides to sit down and work together to fix a business that can work. The NFL and NBA have managed to work together for the good of the game.

You have a problem with free agency?
I have a problem with baseball (owners and players not working together to solve their problems). Free agancy is a fact of life in sports. How FA works for all parties can be mutually beneficial.

The owners created this mess for themselves,and it has been proven in court,now all of a sudden the MLBPA should bail the owners out?
I never asked the players to fix anything. I asked for "Baseball" to FIX everything. That includes the players and owners. If the players go on Strike, fine with me. If the owners lock them out, fine with me.

I dont want a half ass settlement. Fix it once and for all.

Its time to fix what is wrong with the game. GREED on everyones part. Its not a game, its a business. Have both sides work together for the betterment of the business as a whole. Its not about pointing fingers at the owners or the players. Its time to fix a broken business.

According to the antitrust exemption that the owners continue to hide behind baseball is a "sport" and thereby exempt from the rules that govern other businesses.

So are you suggesting that the MLB be stripped of its exemption?

Are you ready to deal with the consequences that result from MLB being stripped of it's antitrust exemption?

Mentioning the NFL and the NBA bears little consequence in this argument,both of those unions are relatively weak unions that could not stage a fight with the owners and win,you can toss the NHL in that mix too,but the MLBPA has yet to lose a labor fight in thirty years.

What are your suggestions for a fair and equal settlement between the players and the owners?Since it is obvious that you beleive the owners are really losing money on this as opposed to what I believe the truth to be,let us hear how you would "fix" baseball.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-19-2002, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by MisterB


I had to change my underwear after reading this one...http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/lol.gif

The fact is the Yankees & Mets are sharing a market with a metro population of over 21 million, the Sox and Cubs share a market of just over 9 mil. Under the current system, the differences in market size significantly affects revenue from any local source (gate, local media, parking/concession), and local revenues are the bulk of most clubs' revenue. According to the MLB figures from last year (yeah I know, but it's all we have to go on for now) the Yankees spent more on players than the Sox made in total revenue ($117M vs. $111M) And guess what, even by those iffy 'official' numbers, the Yankees still made a profit. Steinbrenner isn't paying out of his own pocket for any of this. The Sox paid out 60% of their revenue in player salaries. The Yankees spent less than 50% on theirs, and were still averaging over $4.5M per player on the 25-man roster. The Yankees aren't neccessarily more efficient than the Sox - NY metro has twice the population of Chicago metro, and the Yankees made twice the revenue of the Sox.

Steinbrenner and Reinsdorf do have one thing in common - they're both trying to stay within budget. King George spends $120M on players because he can afford to. Yes, he's trying to win, but he's in a position to do it without breaking the bank. It's not just that JR's a tightwad. And even bringing in new ownership doesn't change the revenue limitations under the current system.

That having been said, I'd rather see JR spend seriously into the red (can we say Diamondbacks?) to actually put a Championship team on the field, and then have him sell out to recoup his losses. Then at least we'd have someone new to complain about... :smile:

Are you suggesting George Steinbrenner has the financial resources to compete with conglomerates like Disney, Nintendo, Fox, and Turner?

Okay, now it's my turn to soil my pants.

He made his fortune buiding ships. He's capitalized by controlling TV rights with MSG and others. If you think that puts him in the same category with the deep pockets Mickey Mouse earns for Disney, you need to double-check your math.

And if you wish to believe Jerry Colangelo has spent his Diamondbacks into the red, be a real man and have your opinions publish in a national journal. Maybe Colangelo will take time out to slap you with a defamation of character lawsuit. He has categorically denied any financial troubles with his team.

Talk about complaining...

MisterB
07-20-2002, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Are you suggesting George Steinbrenner has the financial resources to compete with conglomerates like Disney, Nintendo, Fox, and Turner? He made his fortune buiding ships. He's capitalized by controlling TV rights with MSG and others. If you think that puts him in the same category with the deep pockets Mickey Mouse earns for Disney, you need to double-check your math.

Can George personally match up money to those companies? Hell no. But he's not spending his personal worth on Jeff Weaver and Raul Mondesi. The Yankees spend that kind of money because they make that kind of money. Disney is already looking to unload the Angels, so they're not interested in pumping money into a baseball team. As for Nintendo, Fox and Turner - the Mariners, Dodgers and Braves haven't passed up the Yankees spending-wise (yet...?). Compared to the rest of MLB, George & the Yankees are waaay closer to being Goliath than they are to being David. Besides, if Steinbrenner can't match up with the conglomerates, can Reinsdorf? The original complaint on JR was he doesn't 'do what it takes' to field a winning team (i.e. spend Yankee-like money) fact is he doesn't have Yankee-like money to spend.

And if you wish to believe Jerry Colangelo has spent his Diamondbacks into the red, be a real man and have your opinions publish in a national journal. Maybe Colangelo will take time out to slap you with a defamation of character lawsuit. He has categorically denied any financial troubles with his team.

He can sue Bud Lite first - Selig's the one that trotted out the numbers saying Arizona lost $44M last year. My point is the Yanks spent $117M on players, lost the World Series, and made an $8M profit; Arizona spent $99M, won, and lost $44M. If that's true (debateable) and they keep it up, then they will be in trouble before long. Until the real numbers are brought out into the open, we have no proof one way or the other.

Sorry for the ramble, but hearing Steinbrenner referred to as a 'small-time owner throwback' kind of blew my mind...