PDA

View Full Version : Quote Of The Day 12/9


Lip Man 1
12-09-2002, 09:20 PM
"Sustained success is what we're after, not the short-term thing." --Kenny Williams to White Sox com

Yea heaven forbid the Sox actually try to win a World Series! (that would cost money you know...)They want "sustained success".....you know like winning 83 games a season!

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

What a dope!

Lip

WinningUgly!
12-09-2002, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
"Sustained success is what we're after, not the short-term thing." --Kenny Williams to White Sox com

Yea heaven forbid the Sox actually try to win a World Series! (that would cost money you know...)They want "sustained success".....you know like winning 83 games a season!

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

What a dope!

Lip

That quote pretty much sums up why this organization is so stuck in the mud.

Great teams don't rebuild...they re-tool.

DVG
12-09-2002, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
"Sustained success is what we're after, not the short-term thing." --Kenny Williams to White Sox com

Yea heaven forbid the Sox actually try to win a World Series! (that would cost money you know...)They want "sustained success".....you know like winning 83 games a season!

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

What a dope!

Lip

Hey Lips, did it ever occur to an expert sports juornalist such as
yourself that Williams just might have winning a World Series or
two in mind as part of that "sustained success?" Or are you too
busy finding any excuse to rip the organization and post LOL
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL after posts that barely qualify as funny?

OfficerKarkovice
12-09-2002, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by DVG
Hey Lips, did it ever occur to an expert sports juornalist such as
yourself that Williams just might have winning a World Series or
two in mind as part of that "sustained success?" Or are you too
busy finding any excuse to rip the organization and post LOL
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL after posts that barely qualify as funny?

Well what sense would that make??? The White Sox and Kenny Williams suck! LOLOLOLOLOLOL

jeremyb1
12-09-2002, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
"Sustained success is what we're after, not the short-term thing." --Kenny Williams to White Sox com

Yea heaven forbid the Sox actually try to win a World Series! (that would cost money you know...)They want "sustained success".....you know like winning 83 games a season!

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

What a dope!

Lip

i'm curious what the 2 or 3 moves are that win a club that won 81 games last year a world series this season.

Lip Man 1
12-10-2002, 12:38 AM
Question for "experts" like DVG and Office Karko,

Do you REALLY expect this club to win a World Series without spending any money?

If so can you please explain to me how they can do this?

Please don't talk about all our "can't miss kids," you only have to look at the record to see most of them don't pan out.

Sorry I'm not as "optimistic" as you "experts," but then what the hell do I know. I've only followed this team for 42 years.

I see the "sustained" success under Kenny Williams that has produced 83 and 81 win seasons, I see the "sustained" success under Jerry Reinsdorf that has produced three division titles in 22 years.

Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it...Past is prologue, NOTHING changes until the dopes that are running the organization are gone.

When the Sox actually win something worth a damn I'll back off. Till then it's open season friends and neighbors.

Also just wondering...why do you keep bringing up the fact that I'm in the media? What does that have to do with anything about my comments or opinions? That makes as much sense as bringing up whatever it is that Office Karkovice does for a living or DVG.

Being in the media doesn't disqualify me when it comes to the Sox. I'm a Sox fan, that's all you need be concerned about. What anybody does for a living, good, bad, or mundane isn't relevant.

Lip

jeremyb1
12-10-2002, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

Do you REALLY expect this club to win a World Series without spending any money?

If so can you please explain to me how they can do this?

Please don't talk about all our "can't miss kids," you only have to look at the record to see most of them don't pan out.

Sorry I'm not as "optimistic" as you "experts," but then what the hell do I know. I've only followed this team for 42 years.

I see the "sustained" success under Kenny Williams that has produced 83 and 81 win seasons, I see the "sustained" success under Jerry Reinsdorf that has produced three division titles in 22 years.


the claim that we're not spending money is relative. we anteed up a good deal of cash to resign maggs and paully. why doesn't that count? sometimes its not a question of whether or not money should be spent but when it should be spent. if we were to give 8 million to moyer this year, that's 8 million we can't offer colon next year. we give byrd 5 million this year that could prevent us from having enough money to pay koch in '04, forcing us to trade him.

the standard argument here is that the club has much more money that its spending. fine. regardless clearly money is finite. it doesn't matter whether jr could have a 120 million dollar payroll but will only allow for a max payroll of 60 million. the bottom line is still that the amount of money we have to spend is finite. if he will not allow the payroll to exceed 60 mil, the money we give out now will affect our ability to resign players like buehrle in the future and to sign free agents next season or the season afterwards.

clearly, any sox fan wants jr to spend as much as is humanly possible. i don't see what any sox fan gains from saving reinsdorf money. the reality though is that he'll only spend so much and we're bound by that and therefore must consider that.

my question is why is the present always the best chance of winning? that's completely illogical and impossible. clearly we don't have the same chances of winning a world series this year as we did last year. therefore if we'd traded garland for erstad last year and won 4 more games and then lost erstad as a free agent, we wouldn't have won a world series last year and our chances of winning a world series this year and next year would be lesser without garland. clearly in that case the decision to "win now" would be flawed.

duke of dorwood
12-10-2002, 07:45 AM
That's right. Then trade away prospects you develop for stiffs like Ritchie. This Williams talks, and says nothing.

:KW

Bla Bla Bla Bla

OfficerKarkovice
12-10-2002, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Question for "experts" like DVG and Office Karko,

Do you REALLY expect this club to win a World Series without spending any money?

If so can you please explain to me how they can do this?

Please don't talk about all our "can't miss kids," you only have to look at the record to see most of them don't pan out.

Sorry I'm not as "optimistic" as you "experts," but then what the hell do I know. I've only followed this team for 42 years.

I see the "sustained" success under Kenny Williams that has produced 83 and 81 win seasons, I see the "sustained" success under Jerry Reinsdorf that has produced three division titles in 22 years.

Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it...Past is prologue, NOTHING changes until the dopes that are running the organization are gone.

When the Sox actually win something worth a damn I'll back off. Till then it's open season friends and neighbors.

Also just wondering...why do you keep bringing up the fact that I'm in the media? What does that have to do with anything about my comments or opinions? That makes as much sense as bringing up whatever it is that Office Karkovice does for a living or DVG.

Being in the media doesn't disqualify me when it comes to the Sox. I'm a Sox fan, that's all you need be concerned about. What anybody does for a living, good, bad, or mundane isn't relevant.

Lip

I in no way claim to be an expert on this, nor any subject for that matter, but I guess the only problem I had and I assume this is what DVG was referring to also is that all your posts are the exact same thing. Regardless of what the topic is you always seem to chime in with "keep dreaming...LOLOL" or something of the sort. I fully understand you're frustration with the team, hence the negativity...and perhaps others opinions are nothing but false optimism, but it would seem to me that would be a more healthy outlook on things if nothing else. Anyway, you're opinion (along with everyone else's here) is valued...but all the negativity and immediately shooting an idea down just gets a little old for me.

Hullett_Fan
12-10-2002, 10:40 AM
I see the "sustained" success under Kenny Williams that has produced 83 and 81 win seasons, I see the "sustained" success under Jerry Reinsdorf that has produced three division titles in 22 years....When the Sox actually win something worth a damn I'll back off. Till then it's open season friends and neighbors.


Lip - I'm relatively new to the site but I've enjoyed reading your posts...especially with regard to the moves the Sox will (won't) make this offseason.

Your quote above says it all. IMO, this team is really only a #2 starter away from taking this division and possibly doing damage in the playoffs ala the Angels.

We are in the utterly WORST division in baseball...no other division comes close to being this bad. KC and Detroit should be contracted. It's depressing to think that a team from the 3rd largest market can't beat out Minneapolis for the division.

The Yankees are vulnerable now...but probably not for long...NY'ers have high expectations since the late 90's dynasty and George will reload once he can dump Mondesi et al.

Does JR want the Cubs to be the first to win a world championship for Chicago after 80+ years of futility??? That team (after a filling a few more holes this winter) will be closer to it than our Sox.

Isn't worth it to JR to spend $5-10 mill to put us in the hunt for it all (especially with the All-star game here). He'd re-coup that when there's extra fannies in the seats and merchandising (I'd be first in line for a Sox World Champs t-shirt).

In other words...Get Colon and let him kick butt in the last year of his deal, then let him sign elsewhere for 2004.

Just my 2 cents...sorry for the long post :gulp:

Lip Man 1
12-10-2002, 11:09 AM
Karko:

You're right...I'm sorry I went over the top. What set me off was the reference to being in the media. I'm not ashamed at what I do, it's enabled me to meet some individuals that I never thought I would and see things that I never believed possible (Super Bowl XX).

I will try to tone down some things in the future, sometimes that's hard because of all the fanatsies the "optimist" keep spewing here at WSI.

I only know what I see and what I have seen for the past 42 years (shudder...)

Lip

Lip Man 1
12-10-2002, 11:16 AM
Hullett says:

Does JR want the Cubs to be the first to win a world championship for Chicago after 80+ years of futility???

I only know that Reinsdorf was on the studio pre game show on the flagship station last season and made the comment that "Chicago has always belonged to the Cubs..."

If he honestly thinks that (and I feel he does) then he doesn't know Chicago history and the answer to your question should be obvious.

Also to anybody else reading, allow me to state again, that even I don't think it's possible for Reinsdorf to have a Yankee or Dodger sized payroll. However, he can at least put out a payroll and team that can represent the 3rd largest market in the country. He can put out a team and payroll that can dominate a terrible division, much like the Indians did from 1995 through 1999. Even the Angels have been given approval by Disney (another organization with the mind set of Reinsdorf) to increase payroll 22 million dollars!

Raise the Sox payroll from 45 to 67 million (a la the Angels) and see what happens, see who they can get and see how the chances dramatically increase at them playing in October.

Lip

jeremyb1
12-10-2002, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

Raise the Sox payroll from 45 to 67 million (a la the Angels) and see what happens, see who they can get and see how the chances dramatically increase at them playing in October.
[/B]

we were at 60 to begin last year, weren't we? or in '00?

RichH55
12-10-2002, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Hullett says:

Does JR want the Cubs to be the first to win a world championship for Chicago after 80+ years of futility???

I only know that Reinsdorf was on the studio pre game show on the flagship station last season and made the comment that "Chicago has always belonged to the Cubs..."

If he honestly thinks that (and I feel he does) then he doesn't know Chicago history and the answer to your question should be obvious.

Also to anybody else reading, allow me to state again, that even I don't think it's possible for Reinsdorf to have a Yankee or Dodger sized payroll. However, he can at least put out a payroll and team that can represent the 3rd largest market in the country. He can put out a team and payroll that can dominate a terrible division, much like the Indians did from 1995 through 1999. Even the Angels have been given approval by Disney (another organization with the mind set of Reinsdorf) to increase payroll 22 million dollars!

Raise the Sox payroll from 45 to 67 million (a la the Angels) and see what happens, see who they can get and see how the chances dramatically increase at them playing in October.

Lip


67 million does sound more realistic...but we have to spend that wisely...Baltimore spends plenty of money with little to show for it....We have shown that we might be willing to spend correctly with the resigning of Mags and Konerko, and I hope to add Buerhle to that list.

Unless you are the Yankees, you have to build from within, and even the Yankees developed quite a few guys themselves. Target the key guys, get them locked up long term and you can add from there....I don't think 2003 is our year, but to be honest I don't see why 2004 wouldn't put us as a contender. We will probably need to add those "final piece" type guys next offseason, and I'm hoping we will have the foresight to do that

Chisox_cali
12-10-2002, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
"Sustained success is what we're after, not the short-term thing." --Kenny Williams to White Sox com

Yea heaven forbid the Sox actually try to win a World Series! (that would cost money you know...)They want "sustained success".....you know like winning 83 games a season!

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

What a dope!

Lip

Man everytime I read your posts I can help but ask myself, "Why are you here?" For a guy who HATE'S this team, it's management, and players(i.e those "can't miss kids" you love so much) you sure like to waste your time posting what is essentially the exact same posts, which always end in a witty shot at the organization, and "LOL" written Adnauseam. You gotta be in to S & M or something to keep coming back and discuss and insult a team which obviously causes you so much pain, and 42 years of it nonetheless. I see this place is no different from the last time I was here.

MarkEdward
12-10-2002, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1


Do you REALLY expect this club to win a World Series without spending any money?

The Angels say hi, in regards to the "you have to spend money to win a championship" theory. So do the Twins and A's, to lesser extents.

Lip Man 1
12-10-2002, 04:25 PM
Mark:

The Angels payroll last year was in the mid 60's. The Giants in the mid 70's.

The Sox have never had a payroll that high, the largest was 57 million in 1997.

Lip

Dadawg_77
12-10-2002, 04:26 PM
Plus, Lip did say "This club", Under current leadership I am not sure if they could win with a $100 million payroll.

Lip Man 1
12-10-2002, 04:30 PM
Chisox Cali:

Sorry you're bugged by things. Then just don't come back or don't read my comments, articles, historical pieces etc.

I won't abandon the Sox because I was born and raised in Chicago and am a loyal person, but that's not "blind loyalty" especially to the nitwits who own and operate this franchise.

If you think otherwise please post your reasonings and we'll debate them.

Of course I hold the trump card...the current organization hasn't been to a World Series nor have they even won a home playoff game, while other poor franchises like Minnesota, Detroit, Kansas City etc have.

Lip

Chisox_cali
12-10-2002, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Chisox Cali:

Sorry you're bugged by things. Then just don't come back or don't read my comments, articles, historical pieces etc.

I won't abandon the Sox because I was born and raised in Chicago and am a loyal person, but that's not "blind loyalty" especially to the nitwits who own and operate this franchise.

If you think otherwise please post your reasonings and we'll debate them.

Of course I hold the trump card...the current organization hasn't been to a World Series nor have they even won a home playoff game, while other poor franchises like Minnesota, Detroit, Kansas City etc have.

Lip

Our opinions must differ on the definition of "abandon" as well as "blind loyality" than. Most of your post sound like you've abandoned them, or maybe you just beleive they've abandoned you. And "blind loyality" is NOT someone saying "I think the Sox will do well next season" that just's someone being a fan, being a fan doesn't mean you have to write a 16-page essay citing specific examples of why you think they will do well, it just mean watching baseball or any other sport is fun for the person, and my personal favorite response to those kind of post "Dude, your acting like a flub fan" There's a real concrete argument, yeah you really "get" someone with that one. Another thing I've noticed is that you really hardcore pessimists, and that's what you are, love to use that complete and utter COP-OUT phrase "realist" the only thing real about it is that your really negative to the aspects of the team. When it comes to how you judge a team I beleive you can only be "pessimistic" or "optimistic." Saying your "realistic" to me means you don't actually have an opinion of your own, that you can stand strongly by, "realistic" is a very weak argument to me.

MarkEdward
12-10-2002, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Mark:

The Angels payroll last year was in the mid 60's. The Giants in the mid 70's.

The Sox have never had a payroll that high, the largest was 57 million in 1997.

Lip

Um the Angels' payroll last year was 61.7 million, far from being in the middle 60s. That's just semantics, though.

The Sox payroll was a little over 57 million, higher than the Athletics and Twins. Both these teams made it farther than the Sox.

Once again, money does not equal championships. Smarts equal championships. JR can throw 200 million dollars into the team, and if they use the money to sign Jimmy Haynes and Greg Vaughn, it won't do us much good.

By the way, source:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V54C269B2

Lip Man 1
12-10-2002, 08:27 PM
Mark:

Excellent points. Can't argue with them although in a round about way you gave reinforcement to my original posts that this organization can't win with current ownership.

And it has been proven that over the last five years, teams with small payrolls have won what one playoff series (Twins) and none have advanced to the World Series?

Granted money without brains equals nothing but it is a fact that spending money, with or without brains, at least increases your chances of winning. Don't spend money (even in baseball's weakest division) you don't win and like I said think of what the Sox might be able to do in the division if they had a payroll representative of other major cities (i.e. 70 million or so...)

This also doesn't take away from the fact that Disney has authorized a 22 million dollar increase in the Angels payroll.

Lip

Lip Man 1
12-10-2002, 08:41 PM
Cali Sox:

Thank you for a courteous post. I appreciate it! (and I'm not being sarcastic)

To answer your definition then...I am a "realistic pessimist." I do not see this team winning or even competing for a championship as long as Jerry Reinsdorf owns it. He has to many other things that in his mind, take priority over winning (i.e. keeping the payroll low, not giving pitchers long term contracts, not dealing with powerful agents like Scott Boras, not making himself available to the Chicago media and by proxy Sox fans, not being willing to take on the Cubs in a PR fight for the city and surrounding area)

Those in my opinion are all serious handicaps towards winning and "sustaining success" in the words of Ken Williams. They might have worked thirty years ago but not today, not when so many other teams are putting emphasis on them. Those restraints put the Sox at a serious disadvantage.

This does not mean they can't have a great season or two but sooner of later the ills of the organization catch up with the on field performance and the Sox sink back towards mediocrity.

Perhaps that explains what took place in 1984, 1995 and 2001 for example. Or the fact that the Sox haven't been in a World Series since 1959 or even won a home playoff game since then. (They've lost nine straight)

In a few weeks the interview that I did with Jack McDowell is going to be running on WSI. I invite you to read it and may I suggest paying close attention to Jack's comments about Mark McGwire wanting to come to the Sox, Reinsdorf's explination to Jack about why the Sox would never sign any big name, big money free agents and McDowell's yearly contract problems.

They point out the problems in this franchise very clearly and despite the fact that it's ten years later remember the same guy owns the club.

Thanks for reading this.

Lip

Chisox_cali
12-10-2002, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Cali Sox:

Thank you for a courteous post. I appreciate it! (and I'm not being sarcastic)

To answer your definition then...I am a "realistic pessimist." I do not see this team winning or even competing for a championship as long as Jerry Reinsdorf owns it. He has to many other things that in his mind, take priority over winning (i.e. keeping the payroll low, not giving pitchers long term contracts, not dealing with powerful agents like Scott Boras, not making himself available to the Chicago media and by proxy Sox fans, not being willing to take on the Cubs in a PR fight for the city and surrounding area)

Those in my opinion are all serious handicaps towards winning and "sustaining success" in the words of Ken Williams. They might have worked thirty years ago but not today, not when so many other teams are putting emphasis on them. Those restraints put the Sox at a serious disadvantage.

This does not mean they can't have a great season or two but sooner of later the ills of the organization catch up with the on field performance and the Sox sink back towards mediocrity.

Perhaps that explains what took place in 1984, 1995 and 2001 for example. Or the fact that the Sox haven't been in a World Series since 1959 or even won a home playoff game since then. (They've lost nine straight)

In a few weeks the interview that I did with Jack McDowell is going to be running on WSI. I invite you to read it and may I suggest paying close attention to Jack's comments about Mark McGwire wanting to come to the Sox, Reinsdorf's explination to Jack about why the Sox would never sign any big name, big money free agents and McDowell's yearly contract problems.

They point out the problems in this franchise very clearly and despite the fact that it's ten years later remember the same guy owns the club.

Thanks for reading this.

Lip

I'll have to check that interview out, Black Jack was always one of my favorites...

Daver
12-10-2002, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by Chisox_cali
I'll have to check that interview out, Black Jack was always one of my favorites...

His new album isn't bad either,at least to me it wasn't.

RKMeibalane
12-10-2002, 10:25 PM
I agree with Lip's comments. In order to win in professional sports, teams must first learn how to compete. The desire to compete must exist, not only in the hearts and minds of the players, but also in the front office of the organization. This desire does not appear to exist, and it probably will not come to be as long as Reinsdorf owns the team.

JR has always been about saving money and doing what is best for him, which is not necessarily the same thing as what is best for the Chicago White Sox. As the old saying goes, "You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs." In other words, in order to win consistently, and thus, earn more money, an owner must first be willing to spend money. If this means accquiring a high-priced free-agent, so be it. Steinbrenner has no qualms about spending money, which is why his team has won four championships in the past seven seasons.

Reinsdorf loves to blame the fans for the Sox countless problems, but what he fails to realize is that he is the main reason for their struggles. Loyalty is "a two-way street." If Reinsdorf wants fans to return to the ballpark, he must first prove his loyalty to us by actually doing his job. I would rather not spend the next six decades of my life waiting for that elusive World Series trophy.

Lip Man 1
12-10-2002, 10:27 PM
Daver:

I second that! I listened to "Ape of The Kings" last night and it was damn good. I e-mailed my opinion to Jack and told him that he did a helluva job.

Lip

Paulwny
12-11-2002, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

In a few weeks the interview that I did with Jack McDowell is going to be running on WSI. I invite you to read it and may I suggest paying close attention to Jack's comments about Mark McGwire wanting to come to the Sox, Reinsdorf's explination to Jack about why the Sox would never sign any big name, big money free agents and McDowell's yearly contract problems.
Lip

Lip,
Did you happen to ask Jack if he thought there was any truth to the rumor, floating around Toronto, that he was tipping-off certain pitches?
They hit him pretty hard in the play-offs.

moochpuppy
12-11-2002, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Mark:

The Angels payroll last year was in the mid 60's. The Giants in the mid 70's.

The Sox have never had a payroll that high, the largest was 57 million in 1997.

Lip

What would that $57 million equate in 2002 dollars?

Lip Man 1
12-11-2002, 12:44 PM
Pauly:

Yes I did ask Jack that question. He said it was possible but listed another reason (actually two of them) that he thought he had a bad playoff series (by the way the rumor started when Cito Gaston made the comment that both Jack and Fernandez were tipping their pitches a few years after 93)

Lip

Paulwny
12-11-2002, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Pauly:

Yes I did ask Jack that question. He said it was possible but listed another reason (actually two of them) that he thought he had a bad playoff series (by the way the rumor started when Cito Gaston made the comment that both Jack and Fernandez were tipping their pitches a few years after 93)

Lip

I had heard on a Toronto sports talk radio station that the Jays felt Jack was tipping. This was just prior to the series.
I never heard anything about Fernandez, interesting.
Should be a good article.

ode to veeck
12-11-2002, 03:09 PM
i'm curious what the 2 or 3 moves are that win a club that won 81 games last year a world series this season.

that's easy, get rid of two or three out of JR, KW, and JM, probably not enough, but definitely required before the Sox can go ANYWHERE!

ode to veeck
12-11-2002, 03:18 PM
:reinsy

"Chicago has always belonged to the Cubs..."


why is this guy the owner of the Sox!?!?!

Daver
12-11-2002, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
:reinsy




why is this guy the owner of the Sox!?!?!

Because he has more money than you or I put together Ode.

:redneck

voodoochile
12-11-2002, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by daver
Because he has more money than you or I put together Ode.

:redneck

:reinsy
"Because I bought before the big jump in professional sports franchise prices. Of course the increase in value isn't really profit. No no no. True profit is only the money I make as a direct result of yearly opperations - not including my yearly $1M salary - and until it hits a certain level (which I will never ever tell) you folks get screwed. So, come out to the ballpark and watch a winner... er... eat a weiner. After all, I make money on the concessions too, so every penny you spend will allow me to get closer to my lifetime goal of $1B net worth and making the Forbes list of 400 richest Americans before I die... I mean will allow me to come closer to putting a good team on the field."