PDA

View Full Version : Phil Rogers is a moron...


Win1ForMe
09-29-2003, 07:40 PM
Well, seems like 'ol Phil really knew what he was talking about with "the Sox better cash in now" doomsday column just a few weeks ago.

Of course he's not stopping... His WS pick? Twins over Cubs. What a dumbass.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?page=postseasonpredictions

Daver
09-29-2003, 07:44 PM
With any luck you will get a response from Phil himself on this.

MRKARNO
09-29-2003, 07:54 PM
I dont think he's a moron, I just think he's been watching the AL and NL central a ton this year and not enough of the other divisions. It's easy to forget how good the other teams are when you concentrate so much on two of the six divisions

cheeses_h_rice
09-29-2003, 07:57 PM
Wow. 7 out of 18 writers think the Flubs will be in the World Series. That's pretty incredible.

That said, I noticed not one writer picked the Flubs to win it all. Thank god for sanity, eh?

fquaye149
09-29-2003, 08:52 PM
despite the fact that he picked the twins to win it all over the cubs...you will still get about a million people yelling at you for saying that pick was moronic just because he's famous and he posts on this site occasionally.

if voodoochile, wu, or phg had said that, you wouldn't excuse his statement, so don't give rogers that just cuz he writes in the tribune

DrCrawdad
09-29-2003, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
Wow. 7 out of 18 writers think the Flubs will be in the World Series. That's pretty incredible.

That said, I noticed not one writer picked the Flubs to win it all. Thank god for sanity, eh?

40% of the writers say they think the Cubbies will be in the World Series and yet Dusty Baylor says the Cubbies are the underdog in the series against the Braves.

Lip Man 1
09-29-2003, 09:44 PM
Phil's pick is just as valid right now as anybody else's.

The reason many experts are picking the Cubs is because the Cubs can throw three hard throwing pitchers at teams in Prior, Wood and Zambrano.

It's getting colder and it's getting tougher to hit. give these guys a two run lead on a cool damp night and they can shut you down.

I hope this doesn't happen but it's very possible, that's why the Cubs are getting the nods.

Atlanta must beat Wood in game 31 to set the tone otherwise they are in serious trouble. Remember this is a short series and Prior will pitch twice.

Lip

flo-B-flo
09-29-2003, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Phil's pick is just as valid right now as anybody else's.

The reason many experts are picking the Cubs is because the Cubs can throw three hard throwing pitchers at teams in Prior, Wood and Zambrano.

It's getting colder and it's getting tougher to hit. give these guys a two run lead on a cool damp night and they can shut you down.

I hope this doesn't happen but it's very possible, that's why the Cubs are getting the nods.

Atlanta must beat Wood in game 31 to set the tone otherwise they are in serious trouble. Remember this is a short series and Prior will pitch twice.

Lip AMEN I write to you

cheeses_h_rice
09-29-2003, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Phil's pick is just as valid right now as anybody else's.

The reason many experts are picking the Cubs is because the Cubs can throw three hard throwing pitchers at teams in Prior, Wood and Zambrano.

It's getting colder and it's getting tougher to hit. give these guys a two run lead on a cool damp night and they can shut you down.

I hope this doesn't happen but it's very possible, that's why the Cubs are getting the nods.

Atlanta must beat Wood in game 31 to set the tone otherwise they are in serious trouble. Remember this is a short series and Prior will pitch twice.

Lip

Wood will pitch twice, not Prior. Prior goes on Friday in game #3 -- how would he also pitch game #5?

doublem23
09-29-2003, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
Wood will pitch twice, not Prior. Prior goes on Friday in game #3 -- how would he also pitch game #5?

He just will, dammit! This is doomsday we're talking about.

Anyways, the Braves will smoke these jokers... This is the best Brave team they've had in a long time. I think the Jesus Brothers are going to have a little more difficulty with Atlanta than Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Milwaukee.

cheeses_h_rice
09-29-2003, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
He just will, dammit! This is doomsday we're talking about.

Anyways, the Braves will smoke these jokers... This is the best Brave team they've had in a long time. I think the Jesus Brothers are going to have a little more difficulty with Atlanta than Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Milwaukee.

I hope you're right, MM. The thing is, I speak as an avowed Braves fan (though much, much less passionate than I am about the Sox), and their offense tends to freeze up when the pressure's on, too. Plus Bobby Cox tends to manage differently in the postseason than he does during the regular season.

But you're right about the Braves being a different machine this year -- they've got good pitching plus a stud offense.

TDog
09-30-2003, 12:09 AM
Seriously, with the unbalanced schedule embarrassingly weak divisions, the Twinks only won 90 games and the Cubs only won 88. Not only did they win significantly fewer games than their leagues' wild card teams, they played appreciably easier schedules.

I understand that the Cubs' pitching is highly regarded, but they will be running into a team that goes to the playoffs every year. Even as good as Randy Johnson has always been, he had a few bad post-seasons before he and Schilling dominated the World Series.

Dan H
09-30-2003, 06:17 AM
The one thing we have in our favor is that the Cubs haven't played a good team in a month. I think they deserve credit for what they did, but the last two weeks they played the Mets, Pirates and Reds. Only the Pirates provided any competition and they laid down at times.

What we have against us is that the Braves are not a good post season team and don't have the strong starting pitching they once had. Lip is right. Game one is huge. Still, the Cubs are an extremely dangerous team right now. They won't go down easily.

But I don't see how the Twins can go very far. The Yankees have dominated them, and I don't see how they could beat Oakland or Boston either.

Hangar18
09-30-2003, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
Wow. 7 out of 18 writers think the Flubs will be in the World Series. That's pretty incredible.

That said, I noticed not one writer picked the Flubs to win it all. Thank god for sanity, eh?

Im actually picking them to go all the way also. for a number of reasons....One of them being of all the teams in the playoffs, the Networks will WANT a WS with them in it. Dont underestimate
the POWER of a Corporation. Besides....It would be "Great for Baseball". Im really getting scared of all the terms being thrown around out there by the media the last 72 hours ....

cheeses_h_rice
09-30-2003, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Im actually picking them to go all the way also. for a number of reasons....One of them being of all the teams in the playoffs, the Networks will WANT a WS with them in it. Dont underestimate
the POWER of a Corporation. Besides....It would be "Great for Baseball". Im really getting scared of all the terms being thrown around out there by the media the last 72 hours ....

Hangar, no offense, but you gotta lay off the drugs.

Vsahajpal
09-30-2003, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
Hangar, no offense, but you gotta lay off the drugs.

You don't think it is morbidly funny watching a guy self-destruct like this?

Hangar18
09-30-2003, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
You don't think it is morbidly funny watching a guy self-destruct like this?

Laugh now.....but when a couple of phantom strikes get called,
or that dork Bob Costas yells on the air about the "ghost of Harry pushed that home run onto Waveland" we'll see what
everyone says. The games changed im afraid......theres too much money on the table for the cubs to NOT make it

Vsahajpal
09-30-2003, 09:29 AM
Hang on, let me get some popcorn...

cheeses_h_rice
09-30-2003, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
Hang on, let me get some popcorn...

Can I join you, Vic? Get some Old Style while you're at it...

:)

hold2dibber
09-30-2003, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Win1ForMe
Well, seems like 'ol Phil really knew what he was talking about with "the Sox better cash in now" doomsday column just a few weeks ago.

Of course he's not stopping... His WS pick? Twins over Cubs. What a dumbass.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?page=postseasonpredictions

I think we'd better wait until the end of the offseason to determine if the Sox have missed their window of opportunity. This team is going to have some substantial changes going into next year - among Colon, Gordon, Konerko, Lee, Ordonez, Thomas, R. Alomar, and Everett, I fully expect at least three and very possibly more to be gone. Doesn't necessarily mean that the Sox are going to struggle next year - but KW is going to have to be creative and smart (and lucky).

As to his Cubs/Twins prediction, I sure hope he's wrong. But I can see the Twins beating the Yankees in a 5 game series. Johan Santana pitches (potentially) twice, and he is the best starting pitcher in that series. And Radke has been phenomenal the last couple months and is a big game pitcher. I have a hard time seeing them beating the BoSox or A's in a 7 game series, but I do think the Twins are dangerous. As to the Cubs, as a pessimistic Sox fan, I assume they will win the World Series thereby crushing the Sox franchise and ruining all of our lives. So I'm not going to disagree with Phil on that either.

34 Inch Stick
09-30-2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Laugh now.....but when a couple of phantom strikes get called,
or that dork Bob Costas yells on the air about the "ghost of Harry pushed that home run onto Waveland" we'll see what
everyone says. The games changed im afraid......theres too much money on the table for the cubs to NOT make it

The lunatic is in my head!

Well, I'll get some Vegas hoods to take out the television execs because they certainly do not want the Cubs to win it all.

Of course the Masons will have a say in this thing before it is all said and done.

jeremyb1
09-30-2003, 01:50 PM
In some ways I don't think Phil's picks are terrible because the playoffs are a crapshoot. Anyone can win and the Cubs and Twins are hot right now. The problem is that they've been hot playing against inferior teams. Outside of sweeping us, the Twins have been beating up on teams like the Tigers and Indians the last month while the Cubs have been beating up on Pittsburg. The Braves and Yankees are really good teams and I think that'll make a huge difference against teams that squeaked into the playoffs like the Cubs and Twins. I mean come one, someone had to win those divisions. That doesn't mean those clubs are on par with the other teams in the playoffs.

hold2dibber
09-30-2003, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
In some ways I don't think Phil's picks are terrible because the playoffs are a crapshoot. Anyone can win and the Cubs and Twins are hot right now. The problem is that they've been hot playing against inferior teams. Outside of sweeping us, the Twins have been beating up on teams like the Tigers and Indians the last month while the Cubs have been beating up on Pittsburg. The Braves and Yankees are really good teams and I think that'll make a huge difference against teams that squeaked into the playoffs like the Cubs and Twins. I mean come one, someone had to win those divisions. That doesn't mean those clubs are on par with the other teams in the playoffs.

At least on paper, the Cubs are pretty scary in a 5 game series, because of their starting pitching. I'd take Wood, Prior or Zambrano over any starter the Braves have. In a 7 game series, that pitching can get stretched pretty thin and make it tougher on a one dimensional team. But if the Cubs' starters are hot, they could carry that team a long, long, (puke), long way.

The Twins don't seem as daunting on paper, and I have a hard time seeing them go too far. But who knows - I said the same thing last year and they managed to knock out the A's.

hold2dibber
10-01-2003, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by Win1ForMe
Of course he's not stopping... His WS pick? Twins over Cubs. What a dumbass.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?page=postseasonpredictions

Doesn't look like such a dumbass today, eh?

Hangar18
10-01-2003, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Doesn't look like such a dumbass today, eh?

No kidding. Had a cub fan say to me last nite "we go to the series, sox are finished in this town". he was a very middleaged guy, shot and a beer type. told him he might be right

hold2dibber
10-01-2003, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
No kidding. Had a cub fan say to me last nite "we go to the series, sox are finished in this town". he was a very middleaged guy, shot and a beer type. told him he might be right

I don't think so. There are plenty of people out there who dislike the Cubs and while their popularity would soar, there would be backlash (i.e., tickets will become increasingly difficult and expensive to get). This city is certainly big enough to support two major league teams, even if the Cubs do win it all (and I fear they might). But it would certainly hurt the Sox and would require them to do everything possible to make some waves themselves.

mandmandm
10-01-2003, 08:58 AM
Cubs getting in or winning the world series will only add to the list of teams that have gotten in since JR took control of this team. I used to defend JR but the results have proved that he is a very incompetent owner. He had this city a decade ago and pissed it all away. Cubs going far in the playoffs is just another nail in the coffin that JR built.

Lip Man 1
10-01-2003, 10:58 AM
Hanger:

People here at this web site and in the Chicago media (through this web site) as well as Sox published historians have been warning you of this possibility for at least the past two years.

They have been laughed at and ridiculed.

Maybe now everyone will begin to realize what's at stake in the next three weeks.

It's unfortunate that Sox owenrship has failed to understand this as well. 90 million dollars in payroll versus 53 million.

Lip

dickallen15
10-01-2003, 11:10 AM
The Cubs won a game last night they should have lost. Fick screwed up, or Atlanta would have been out of the inning without a run scored. The Cubs will lose. Winning a World Series actually might hurt their lovable loser image. But that is a long way off. Don't get your panties in a bunch over 1 game. It won't hurt the White Sox. The Cubs are about maxed out right now. They play to the biggest capacity percentage-wise in baseball, their payroll is going to skyrocket, and the Tribune Company, who has a responsibility to shareholders is going to have to make tough decisions. I will tell you something though, when they move out of Wrigley, and I think that day is coming sooner rather than later, watch for them to build a Wrigley replica in the south loop, with all the bells and whistles, opening up to the skyline, with a riverwalk, Wedella boats to the games from the trains etc. Just what JR should have done.

hold2dibber
10-01-2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by dickallen15
Winning a World Series actually might hurt their lovable loser image. But that is a long way off.

I heard to Cubs fans talking this morning at Union Station. One was actually saying that the only problem with a play off run is that it will ruin all the Cubs great "century of failure" type statistics, like not having won a road playoff game in a gazillion years. He suggested that although he wants them to win it all, if they don't, he'd rather they fall flat on their faces early. He said that if they don't it would hurt their lovable loser image. Good grief.

It won't hurt the White Sox. The Cubs are about maxed out right now. They play to the biggest capacity percentage-wise in baseball, their payroll is going to skyrocket, and the Tribune Company, who has a responsibility to shareholders is going to have to make tough decisions.

That's what I'm thinking. I've always thought that if the Cubs win a WS before the Sox, that could kill the franchise. But seriously, how much worse could it get? The Sox are pretty much down to their core fan base anyway. Wrigley is already basically sold out all the time. If the Sox are good, their fan base will show up, and the casual fans who can't afford Wrigley or don't like the logistic difficulties in getting to Wrigley will show up, too. But the key for the Sox, as always, is winning. They have to be good and they have to make the fans know they are committed to winning above everything else.

Hangar18
10-01-2003, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Hanger:

People here at this web site and in the Chicago media (through this web site) as well as Sox published historians have been warning you of this possibility for at least the past two years.

They have been laughed at and ridiculed.

Maybe now everyone will begin to realize what's at stake in the next three weeks.

It's unfortunate that Sox owenrship has failed to understand this as well. 90 million dollars in payroll versus 53 million.

Lip

(laughing out loud) Lip, Ive known this for quite some time.
Your preaching to the choir. I think when I received that moment of CLARITY, that moment that this was Indeed now a Race To the Promised Land, where we had No Choice but to get there 1st or else, was in 2000, when we played such good baseball that year, but were Ignored Nationally and Locally MediaWise, and instead were subjected to the "Sox are in 1st...But whats wrong with the Cubs" headlines. I started to realize this franchise could be in trouble. I think others around here may be quietly and painfully realizing whats happening. Why do you think ive been so depressed lately? Our Future isnt in our hands anymore. Only thing we can do now, Is IMPLORE Kenny to SIGN people, To Strengthen this Team just a bit more, and Hope Atlanta can Save Our Franchise :(:

Hangar18
10-01-2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I don't think so. There are plenty of people out there who dislike the Cubs and while their popularity would soar, there would be backlash ..........

Thats an interesting point. There most certainly would be some sort of Backlash, a Rebellion of sorts. I just wonder if it would be enough to sustain a Franchise thru the coming very soon
"dark ages". And would the media even acknowledge it?

dickallen15
10-01-2003, 11:53 AM
What's with this "we're all doomed" attitude? You are talking about a team that won 2 more regular season games than the White Sox. They have the worst record of any team in the playoffs. They won 1 game, and you are already taking about the death of the White Sox. If I owned a team, I would much rather pay $53 million for 86 wins than $90 million for 88. I know the Cubs have a chance to win, but its still a longshot.

cheeses_h_rice
10-01-2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
What's with this "we're all doomed" attitude? You are talking about a team that won 2 more regular season games than the White Sox. They have the worst record of any team in the playoffs. They won 1 game, and you are already taking about the death of the White Sox. If I owned a team, I would much rather pay $53 million for 86 wins than $90 million for 88. I know the Cubs have a chance to win, but its still a longshot.

You'd rather own a team that fails to make the playoffs than one that does?

Wow, that's an...errr...*interesting* take on things, I must say.

Hangar18
10-01-2003, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Hanger:


They have been laughed at and ridiculed.

Lip

you forgot being called a Heretic too. I should be finished
building my Ark by Friday, if anyone needs a ride

dickallen15
10-01-2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
You'd rather own a team that fails to make the playoffs than one that does?

Wow, that's an...errr...*interesting* take on things, I must say.

Maybe I am not making myself understood. Of course I would rather have a team that was in the playoffs. If that costs me $35 million more than I am paying right now, and I am losing money with the payroll I have now, I think if I wanted the team around much longer I'd take the $53 million payroll. The reason the Sox aren't in the playoffs isn't because of lack of payroll or talent, they should be there it didn't get done.People on this site and on other sites have no problem spending Reinsdorf's money. The problem is a higher payroll is no guarantee of higher attendance. When the Sox signed Belle, they had the 4th highest payroll in MLB, and there were 20000 empty seats on opening day. People here have to be realistic, its getting insane. The Cubs have already been given the World Series trophy, there is a thread that proposes a trade for ARod, which includes Konerko and Koch.

Iwritecode
10-01-2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
Maybe I am not making myself understood. Of course I would rather have a team that was in the playoffs. If that costs me $35 million more than I am paying right now, and I am losing money with the payroll I have now, I think if I wanted the team around much longer I'd take the $53 million payroll. The reason the Sox aren't in the playoffs isn't because of lack of payroll or talent, they should be there it didn't get done.People on this site and on other sites have no problem spending Reinsdorf's money. The problem is a higher payroll is no guarantee of higher attendance. When the Sox signed Belle, they had the 4th highest payroll in MLB, and there were 20000 empty seats on opening day. People here have to be realistic, its getting insane. The Cubs have already been given the World Series trophy, there is a thread that proposes a trade for ARod, which includes Konerko and Koch.

It's a never-ending circle. Larger payroll doesn't exactly gurantee better attendance but winning baseball does. Typically, the teams with the higher payrolls win more because they can afford better talent. So, in theory:

bigger payroll = better talent
better talent = more wins
more wins = higher attendance
higher attendance = more money to spend on payroll

It doesn't always work this way (I seem to remember the Cubs spending 80 million on a team that lost 90+ games) but a lot of the time it does.

I can gurantee you one thing though, there's not a single team in the playoffs that has a lower payroll than the Sox. I also seriously doubt you can find a team within the last 5-10 years or so that won the WS with a payroll barely above 50 million.

I higher payroll doesn't gurantee a WS, but a low payroll can almost gurantee that you won't make it...

hold2dibber
10-01-2003, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
People here have to be realistic, its getting insane. The Cubs have already been given the World Series trophy, there is a thread that proposes a trade for ARod, which includes Konerko and Koch.

Hey, I resemble that remark!!! And I said it was a pipedream.

pipe dream
n.
A fantastic but vain hope (from fantasies induced by the opium pipe); "I have this pipe dream about being emperor of the universe" [syn: dream]

:)

dickallen15
10-01-2003, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
It's a never-ending circle. Larger payroll doesn't exactly gurantee better attendance but winning baseball does. Typically, the teams with the higher payrolls win more because they can afford better talent. So, in theory:

bigger payroll = better talent
better talent = more wins
more wins = higher attendance
higher attendance = more money to spend on payroll

It doesn't always work this way (I seem to remember the Cubs spending 80 million on a team that lost 90+ games) but a lot of the time it does.

I can gurantee you one thing though, there's not a single team in the playoffs that has a lower payroll than the Sox. I also seriously doubt you can find a team within the last 5-10 years or so that won the WS with a payroll barely above 50 million.

I higher payroll doesn't gurantee a WS, but a low payroll can almost gurantee that you won't make it...



The White Sox should be in the playoffs right now, with their payroll. They reason they are not was because they couldn't beat teams with a lower payroll consistently. Detroit, Cleveland, Tampa. A few teams with very bloated payrolls are in the same position as the White Sox. If you owned the team, and it was your money that was going to be lost if it didn't work, would you have a $90 million payroll? Remember, this was a team in first place in September, playing Boston, a playoff team, offering tickets for $5, and still couldn't get 24,000 in the house. JR has screwed up plenty, there is no doubt about that, but he did have the proverbial "pieces in place" this season. For one reason or another it didn't get done. This failure is not Reinsdorf's fault. It is not a payroll issue as to why the White Sox are not in the playoffs this season.

Iwritecode
10-01-2003, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
The White Sox should be in the playoffs right now, with their payroll. They reason they are not was because they couldn't beat teams with a lower payroll consistently. Detroit, Cleveland, Tampa. A few teams with very bloated payrolls are in the same position as the White Sox. If you owned the team, and it was your money that was going to be lost if it didn't work, would you have a $90 million payroll? Remember, this was a team in first place in September, playing Boston, a playoff team, offering tickets for $5, and still couldn't get 24,000 in the house. JR has screwed up plenty, there is no doubt about that, but he did have the proverbial "pieces in place" this season. For one reason or another it didn't get done. This failure is not Reinsdorf's fault. It is not a payroll issue as to why the White Sox are not in the playoffs this season.

Kenny Rogers is a perfect example. If they would have offered him just a little more money, you could've (in theory) subtracted his wins from the Twins and added them to the Sox. What do you end up with? The Sox vs. the Yankees in the ALDS. Instead we were stuck with the likes of Wright/Cotts/Stewart...

anewman35
10-01-2003, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber

That's what I'm thinking. I've always thought that if the Cubs win a WS before the Sox, that could kill the franchise. But seriously, how much worse could it get? The Sox are pretty much down to their core fan base anyway. Wrigley is already basically sold out all the time. If the Sox are good, their fan base will show up, and the casual fans who can't afford Wrigley or don't like the logistic difficulties in getting to Wrigley will show up, too. But the key for the Sox, as always, is winning. They have to be good and they have to make the fans know they are committed to winning above everything else.

Exactly. In some ways, the Cubs winning the World Series could have positive benefits for the Sox (not that I want it to happen). Let's say the Cubs win the series, they sell out all their games early and jack up the ticket prices. Where do the people just looking for a cheap game to go with their family end up? The Cell. And it's most of the people who go to the Cell now are going to suddenly become Cubs fans, so I really don't think there's much of a problem.

dickallen15
10-01-2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Kenny Rogers is a perfect example. If they would have offered him just a little more money, you could've (in theory) subtracted his wins from the Twins and added them to the Sox. What do you end up with? The Sox vs. the Yankees in the ALDS. Instead we were stuck with the likes of Wright/Cotts/Stewart...

3-7 on the roadtrip from TB to DET to CLE
1-6 on the roadtrip for ANA to TEX

That is what cost the Sox. They had sufficient talent to be in the playoffs and compete for a World Series title. It would have been nice to have a #5 starter, but that spot came up infrequently. 4 days rest, 10 days rest etc. so who knows how Rogers would have fared under those circumstances. Maybe if they don't have Rogers, Santana is starting from the get go. That would have been badThe reason the White Sox are not in the playoffs is not cheapness.

Iwritecode
10-01-2003, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
3-7 on the roadtrip from TB to DET to CLE
1-6 on the roadtrip for ANA to TEX

That is what cost the Sox. They had sufficient talent to be in the playoffs and compete for a World Series title. It would have been nice to have a #5 starter, but that spot came up infrequently. 4 days rest, 10 days rest etc. so who knows how Rogers would have fared under those circumstances. Maybe if they don't have Rogers, Santana is starting from the get go. That would have been badThe reason the White Sox are not in the playoffs is not cheapness.

Keith Foulke is another example. I know that Koch blew at least 1 maybe 2 of those games against TB.

They traded Foulke because they didn't want to spend the money...

You can look at it any way you want but history has proven that no team is going to win the WS with a 50 million dollar payroll...

dickallen15
10-01-2003, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Keith Foulke is another example. I know that Koch blew at least 1 maybe 2 of those games against TB.

They traded Foulke because they didn't want to spend the money...

You can look at it any way you want but history has proven that no team is going to win the WS with a 50 million dollar payroll...

They paid Koch almost $11 million for the next 2 years. And they sent $ to Oakland. They were only on the hook with Foulke for this season, and they could have let him go. Anaheims was $61 million, which if you considered Alomar, and Everett is pretty close to the Sox this season. If you are saying the only way to win the
WS is with at least a $90 million payroll then the Sox aren't going to win until they have enough people in this area who feel like attending games. Oakland shouldn't even bother playing Boston. Minnesota should concede to the Yankees. You can't blame Reinsdorf if he doesn't feel like bankrupting his team.

Lip Man 1
10-01-2003, 06:32 PM
For discussion purposes:

"The record is clear. From 1995 through 2001, a total of 224 MLB postseason games were played. Only five were won by clubs whose payrolls were in the lower half of the industry. None advanced past the Division Series, and no team, other than those whose payrolls are in the top fourth of payroll, has won a World Series game during this period. The seven-year postseason record is 219-5 (a .978 winning percentage) in favor of the high payroll teams." --Bud Selig April 2002

The Angels payroll last year was around 65 million, the Giants 75 million and both payrolls went UP going into this season.

The numbers agree with the poster who said no team with a payroll as low as the White Sox has ever got into a World Series.

Meanwhile the Cubs payroll has now ballooned to near 90 million and they are one of eight teams left standing.

Yes money doesn't buy you a World Series but it damn sure increases your chances doesn't it?

Lip

hold2dibber
10-01-2003, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
For discussion purposes:

"The record is clear. From 1995 through 2001, a total of 224 MLB postseason games were played. Only five were won by clubs whose payrolls were in the lower half of the industry. None advanced past the Division Series, and no team, other than those whose payrolls are in the top fourth of payroll, has won a World Series game during this period. The seven-year postseason record is 219-5 (a .978 winning percentage) in favor of the high payroll teams." --Bud Selig April 2002

The Angels payroll last year was around 65 million, the Giants 75 million and both payrolls went UP going into this season.

The numbers agree with the poster who said no team with a payroll as low as the White Sox has ever got into a World Series.

Meanwhile the Cubs payroll has now ballooned to near 90 million and they are one of eight teams left standing.

Yes money doesn't buy you a World Series but it damn sure increases your chances doesn't it?

Lip

You've got that right. It is certainly true that the A's, with their low payroll, have been as good as anybody the last few years, and easily could have a ring or two. It is also true that the Sox, even with their low payroll, should have made the playoffs this year and if they had done so, had a team that was well-designed for post season success. Despite exceptions such as these, however, the fact remains that more money means more possibility and a greater likelihood of success. I for one fully believe that with a new manager and just a bit of fine tuning, the Sox could be legitimate WS contenders next year. But the payroll to do that would probably be about $75 million. JR isn't going to pay that freight - so they'll have to roll the dice that KW can get creative again and put a good team on the field. But its a roll of the dice, whereas keeping the current team in tact would be much more likely to work.

dickallen15
10-02-2003, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
You've got that right. It is certainly true that the A's, with their low payroll, have been as good as anybody the last few years, and easily could have a ring or two. It is also true that the Sox, even with their low payroll, should have made the playoffs this year and if they had done so, had a team that was well-designed for post season success. Despite exceptions such as these, however, the fact remains that more money means more possibility and a greater likelihood of success. I for one fully believe that with a new manager and just a bit of fine tuning, the Sox could be legitimate WS contenders next year. But the payroll to do that would probably be about $75 million. JR isn't going to pay that freight - so they'll have to roll the dice that KW can get creative again and put a good team on the field. But its a roll of the dice, whereas keeping the current team in tact would be much more likely to work.

What about teams with bloated payrolls that go nowhere? The Mets, Rangers etc. If it takes a $80-$90 million payroll to win a WS there's not going to be one on the south side until people start coming to the park a lot more. Reinsdorf WILL pay if he has the money to pay, just look what he did with the Bulls. Their payroll was almost double anyone else's in the halcyon years

hold2dibber
10-02-2003, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by dickallen15
What about teams with bloated payrolls that go nowhere? The Mets, Rangers etc. If it takes a $80-$90 million payroll to win a WS

It doesn't take $80 to $90 million. There's no "magic number". Obviously, from a management perspective, if you're not going to win, it's better to win with a $50 million payroll than with a $90 million payroll. But that's not the issue. Your approach seems to be "if we spend a lot of money, we still might not win, so let's not spend a lot of money." The problem with that approach is that, as others have pointed out, if you don't spend the money you almost certainly are not going to win. I'm not advocating the Sox going out and making like the Mets or Phillies and throwing a bunch of money at guys who don't deserve it. But they've got a very talented group of players - and while I do advocate making a few changes to mix up the chemistry a little bit, that at this point in time, they have a MUCH better chance of doing some serious damage next year if they pay the piper and bring back may of the same players and thereby up the payroll to $70 million or so, than if they down size it back down to $50 million and count on guys like Aaron Miles, Aaron Rowand, Willie Harris, John Rauch, and Danny Wright to get them to the promised land next season.

there's not going to be one on the south side until people start coming to the park a lot more. Reinsdorf WILL pay if he has the money to pay, just look what he did with the Bulls. Their payroll was almost double anyone else's in the halcyon years

I have a real problem with this, for a variety of reasons. First, the Sox attendance problems are directly attributable to a series of horrific and shockingly bad decisions made by this organization under JR's reign (firing Piersall and driving Harry Caray to the North Side, the SportsVision fiasco, dumping Fisk in the middle of the season on the road and refusing him entry into the clubhouse later that year, threatening to take the team to Florida, building a sterile new park when every Sox fan I know was saying to make it cool, quirkly and old fashioned, playing a major role in the '94 strike when the Sox were serious contenders, the White Flag trade, Ribbie & Rhubarb, Terry Bevington, etc., etc., etc.). The organization has steadily pissed off and alienated Sox fans, and to now say "hey, sorry, we can't win because you're not coming to the park" is complete b.s. The onus is on the organization to win back the fan base, and the way to do that is to win, win, win. Nothing else will do. I think KW understands this. The point is, to make money, you have to spend money. JR has plenty of money. Dig deep in those pockets, Jerry, and pay the piper to turn this team into a winner, and to claim back all the Sox fans you've been losing over the years. If it doesn't work out, and you only have $80 million in the bank instead of $100 million, I'm sure you'll find a way to survive. But if it does work, you get a winner and you make that money back by renewed interest in the team.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. They can't just wait for the fans to come back. They have to build a winner (and pay the price to do so) to get them back.

dickallen15
10-02-2003, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
It doesn't take $80 to $90 million. There's no "magic number". Obviously, from a management perspective, if you're not going to win, it's better to win with a $50 million payroll than with a $90 million payroll. But that's not the issue. Your approach seems to be "if we spend a lot of money, we still might not win, so let's not spend a lot of money." The problem with that approach is that, as others have pointed out, if you don't spend the money you almost certainly are not going to win. I'm not advocating the Sox going out and making like the Mets or Phillies and throwing a bunch of money at guys who don't deserve it. But they've got a very talented group of players - and while I do advocate making a few changes to mix up the chemistry a little bit, that at this point in time, they have a MUCH better chance of doing some serious damage next year if they pay the piper and bring back may of the same players and thereby up the payroll to $70 million or so, than if they down size it back down to $50 million and count on guys like Aaron Miles, Aaron Rowand, Willie Harris, John Rauch, and Danny Wright to get them to the promised land next season.



I have a real problem with this, for a variety of reasons. First, the Sox attendance problems are directly attributable to a series of horrific and shockingly bad decisions made by this organization under JR's reign (firing Piersall and driving Harry Caray to the North Side, the SportsVision fiasco, dumping Fisk in the middle of the season on the road and refusing him entry into the clubhouse later that year, threatening to take the team to Florida, building a sterile new park when every Sox fan I know was saying to make it cool, quirkly and old fashioned, playing a major role in the '94 strike when the Sox were serious contenders, the White Flag trade, Ribbie & Rhubarb, Terry Bevington, etc., etc., etc.). The organization has steadily pissed off and alienated Sox fans, and to now say "hey, sorry, we can't win because you're not coming to the park" is complete b.s. The onus is on the organization to win back the fan base, and the way to do that is to win, win, win. Nothing else will do. I think KW understands this. The point is, to make money, you have to spend money. JR has plenty of money. Dig deep in those pockets, Jerry, and pay the piper to turn this team into a winner, and to claim back all the Sox fans you've been losing over the years. If it doesn't work out, and you only have $80 million in the bank instead of $100 million, I'm sure you'll find a way to survive. But if it does work, you get a winner and you make that money back by renewed interest in the team.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. They can't just wait for the fans to come back. They have to build a winner (and pay the price to do so) to get them back.


Sox attendance problems have nothing to do with Piersall and Caray, they set Chicago attendance records after they were gone. It had nothing to do with building a sterile ballpark, people came out in droves the first 4 years of that park. It had nothing to do with Fisk not getting in the clubhouse. People came after that as well.

hold2dibber
10-02-2003, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by dickallen15
Sox attendance problems have nothing to do with Piersall and Caray, they set Chicago attendance records after they were gone. It had nothing to do with building a sterile ballpark, people came out in droves the first 4 years of that park. It had nothing to do with Fisk not getting in the clubhouse. People came after that as well.

Well, I agree that, by far, the biggest reasons that the Sox traditional fan base dislike/distrust the Sox organization are the '94 strike and the white flag trade, but I disagree with your assessment of the effects of the pre-strike missteps by the organization. The Sox drew horribly in the 2nd half of the '80s, but drew exceptionally well for the first few years in the new park because of the novelty of the new park and because that team was so damn good and fun to watch. There was a feeling that the team/organization was building toward something - new park, young, really good, really talented team. I believe they drew during those years for those reasons, and despite the missteps of the '80s. But I think those '80s wounds still persist for many Sox fans. And, perhaps more importantly, those misstakes in the '80s (particularly essentially forcing Caray to the North Side and putting the Sox on SportsVision) helped the Cubs basically take over the town (which is part of the Sox' attendance problem today).

In any event, squabbling over the reasons for the Sox' attendance problems aside, would you not agree that the most likely and most obvious way to turn those problems around is to build a consistent winner that actually can do some damage in the playoffs? If so, would you not also agree that they will be more likely and more able to do so if they have the flexibility to spend $75 million on payroll instead of $55 million? The Sox can keep the payroll low and hope to catch lightening in a bottle, or they can spend some money and have a much better (though not certain) chance of building a consistent winner. The problem with the first option is that it is short lived - even if they had caught lightening in a bottle this year, had made the playoffs and say, for example, gone to the ALCS, but then had to gut the team next year to keep the payroll at $55 million, that isn't going to get the fans back. It would have been great while it lasted, but it wouldn't have turned the franchise around. Upping the payroll to $70 million or so next year would probably result in losses for the ownership. But if it works and they can build a team that is a consistent 90 game winner over the next 5 years, they'll get their money back.

dickallen15
10-02-2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Well, I agree that, by far, the biggest reasons that the Sox traditional fan base dislike/distrust the Sox organization are the '94 strike and the white flag trade, but I disagree with your assessment of the effects of the pre-strike missteps by the organization. The Sox drew horribly in the 2nd half of the '80s, but drew exceptionally well for the first few years in the new park because of the novelty of the new park and because that team was so damn good and fun to watch. There was a feeling that the team/organization was building toward something - new park, young, really good, really talented team. I believe they drew during those years for those reasons, and despite the missteps of the '80s. But I think those '80s wounds still persist for many Sox fans. And, perhaps more importantly, those misstakes in the '80s (particularly essentially forcing Caray to the North Side and putting the Sox on SportsVision) helped the Cubs basically take over the town (which is part of the Sox' attendance problem today).

In any event, squabbling over the reasons for the Sox' attendance problems aside, would you not agree that the most likely and most obvious way to turn those problems around is to build a consistent winner that actually can do some damage in the playoffs? If so, would you not also agree that they will be more likely and more able to do so if they have the flexibility to spend $75 million on payroll instead of $55 million? The Sox can keep the payroll low and hope to catch lightening in a bottle, or they can spend some money and have a much better (though not certain) chance of building a consistent winner. The problem with the first option is that it is short lived - even if they had caught lightening in a bottle this year, had made the playoffs and say, for example, gone to the ALCS, but then had to gut the team next year to keep the payroll at $55 million, that isn't going to get the fans back. It would have been great while it lasted, but it wouldn't have turned the franchise around. Upping the payroll to $70 million or so next year would probably result in losses for the ownership. But if it works and they can build a team that is a consistent 90 game winner over the next 5 years, they'll get their money back.


The problem with having a $75 million payroll and trying to make the money back in 5 years is to keep that team together the payroll would increase dramatically year by year, and you are probably looking at a $120 million payroll in 5 years. Chances are you are not going to get your money back. You must admit drawing 23,000 to a game in September with all upper deck tickets $5, with the team in first place, would not be very encouraging if you owned this team. I think it would make you leary of the financial commitment and/or suicide you are calling for.

hold2dibber
10-02-2003, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by dickallen15
The problem with having a $75 million payroll and trying to make the money back in 5 years is to keep that team together the payroll would increase dramatically year by year, and you are probably looking at a $120 million payroll in 5 years. Chances are you are not going to get your money back.

I disagree. You sign the most important, core guys up for 3 or 4 year deals, then are creative with mixing/matching lower cost but good players during the off seasons, I see no reason why you can't keep the same team (essentially) together for several years without escalating payroll much over the initial levels. Plus, if it isn't working after a year or two (i.e., if the team sucks or the team is great but the fans still aren't coming back), you can dismantle then.

You must admit drawing 23,000 to a game in September with all upper deck tickets $5, with the team in first place, would not be very encouraging if you owned this team. I think it would make you leary of the financial commitment and/or suicide you are calling for.

Well, if they don't do what I'm suggesting, they're simply not going to get over the hump, and playoff contention once every four or five years, an occasional first round play off exit, and 23,000 fans during those rare playoff races is probably about as good as it will get. If I owned this team, I'd be leary of keeping the status quo, and never breaking out of this cycle of mediocrity that has plagued this franchise for 20 plus years. If you're unhappy about 23,000 fans showing up during a playoff race, are you going to do something about it, or just sit on your hands? And I think it is particularly important to note, in considering that question, the fact that ownership's mismanagement has gotten the franchise into this mess in the first place. But if ownership is still making money, maybe they don't care. Maybe sustained mediocrity and an eroding fan base is okay if they're still pulling in $. But I sure as hell hope not. But if that is the case, I would hope and pray that they'll just cash in their chips, sell the team, pocket their profits and go home. Maybe then we'll get ownership with the balls to spend the money to try to turn the franchise around.

With all that said, I do think that the organization has realized that winning is critical to recapture the fans. Whether they'll put their money where there mouth is, however, is another question.

dickallen15
10-02-2003, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I disagree. You sign the most important, core guys up for 3 or 4 year deals, then are creative with mixing/matching lower cost but good players during the off seasons, I see no reason why you can't keep the same team (essentially) together for several years without escalating payroll much over the initial levels. Plus, if it isn't working after a year or two (i.e., if the team sucks or the team is great but the fans still aren't coming back), you can dismantle then.



Well, if they don't do what I'm suggesting, they're simply not going to get over the hump, and playoff contention once every four or five years, an occasional first round play off exit, and 23,000 fans during those rare playoff races is probably about as good as it will get. If I owned this team, I'd be leary of keeping the status quo, and never breaking out of this cycle of mediocrity that has plagued this franchise for 20 plus years. If you're unhappy about 23,000 fans showing up during a playoff race, are you going to do something about it, or just sit on your hands? And I think it is particularly important to note, in considering that question, the fact that ownership's mismanagement has gotten the franchise into this mess in the first place. But if ownership is still making money, maybe they don't care. Maybe sustained mediocrity and an eroding fan base is okay if they're still pulling in $. But I sure as hell hope not. But if that is the case, I would hope and pray that they'll just cash in their chips, sell the team, pocket their profits and go home. Maybe then we'll get ownership with the balls to spend the money to try to turn the franchise around.

With all that said, I do think that the organization has realized that winning is critical to recapture the fans. Whether they'll put their money where there mouth is, however, is another question.

My point is winning isn't even enough to get the people out. The team was in first place, playing Boston, a playoff team. Tickets were $5, people still don't show. The team was in first place, just what everyone was looking for, and still a brutal turnout. Why would increasing the payroll improve attendance, if it was performance that mattered? Judging by the turnout in early September it might but only marginally. You can't expect Reinsdorf to take a $20-50 million bath every year.

voodoochile
10-02-2003, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by dickallen15
My point is winning isn't even enough to get the people out. The team was in first place, playing Boston, a playoff team. Tickets were $5, people still don't show. The team was in first place, just what everyone was looking for, and still a brutal turnout. Why would increasing the payroll improve attendance, if it was performance that mattered? Judging by the turnout in early September it might but only marginally. You can't expect Reinsdorf to take a $20-50 million bath every year.

You keep using that $5 offer as an example, but it wasn't really $5. Each ticket carried a $4 service charge which brought the actual cost up to $9. Then they only offered it until three days before the game when the offer expired. IIRC, the flubbies were in town that night also and thus drew off some of the fans who might have come to see the Sox.

They have a chance to win back some fans these next few years. The Flubbies are at capacity for their stadium and are probably going to jack up ticket prices this off-season. That means the Sox can grab some live action casual fans by not doing much IF they field a competitive team. That means a salary bump. If they could afford the $51 with last years attendance they should be able to afford more this year, right? By 2005 they will be on their own network and will be making more money. Why not use SOME of that projected revenue to make sure the team is a serious contender. Show the fans you are willing to give back to them by taking a risk on taking a loss. They can always dump salary at the deadline to minimize financial risk if they have to.

dickallen15
10-02-2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
You keep using that $5 offer as an example, but it wasn't really $5. Each ticket carried a $4 service charge which brought the actual cost up to $9. Then they only offered it until three days before the game when the offer expired. IIRC, the flubbies were in town that night also and thus drew off some of the fans who might have come to see the Sox.

They have a chance to win back some fans these next few years. The Flubbies are at capacity for their stadium and are probably going to jack up ticket prices this off-season. That means the Sox can grab some live action casual fans by not doing much IF they field a competitive team. That means a salary bump. If they could afford the $51 with last years attendance they should be able to afford more this year, right? By 2005 they will be on their own network and will be making more money. Why not use SOME of that projected revenue to make sure the team is a serious contender. Show the fans you are willing to give back to them by taking a risk on taking a loss. They can always dump salary at the deadline to minimize financial risk if they have to.


The days of salary dumping are over. No one except for the Yankees are willing to pick up extra salary during the season.

voodoochile
10-02-2003, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by dickallen15
The days of salary dumping are over. No one except for the Yankees are willing to pick up extra salary during the season.

The flubbies didn't pick up players this year? The Sox didn't pick up players this year? The Anglels didn't pick up salary last year?

Iwritecode
10-02-2003, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by dickallen15
My point is winning isn't even enough to get the people out. The team was in first place, playing Boston, a playoff team. Tickets were $5, people still don't show. The team was in first place, just what everyone was looking for, and still a brutal turnout. Why would increasing the payroll improve attendance, if it was performance that mattered? Judging by the turnout in early September it might but only marginally. You can't expect Reinsdorf to take a $20-50 million bath every year.

You don't really expect the attendance to increase dramatically overnight do you? It's going to take at least a year or two of sustained winning to get the attendance up. It's all based on season ticket sales.

Considering the Sox season ticket base was, IIRC, somewhere between 10K-15K, you have to expect a walkup crowd of over 20K to even come close to filling the place. There's not many teams in baseball that can do that day in and day out.

It's going to take winning, winning and more winning year after year to get the daily attendance up to 30K each and every night...

Lip Man 1
10-02-2003, 11:58 AM
Dick & Others:

I guess I don't have any answer to the dillema (actually I do but it doesn't jive with Dick's business like approach so I won't get into it other then to say if you are in sports to make a profit you shouldn't be in it in the first place...)

The whole issue of Jerry Reinsdorf and the fans is this...simply put the fans DO NOT trust him, they haven't since day one so when he says 'I'll spend when you show up...' many Sox fans natural reaction is 'no you won't, you'll find some excuse not to spend and laugh all the way to the bank.'

In my opinion and I have stated this before, that's why you will never hear the Sox organization give a figure for what they need attendence wise to start spending. You'll never hear the owner or GM in an interview say 'we'll if we can draw 2.5 million for the next two years we'll raise the payroll XX%'. They won't do that because Sox fans may just nail them on it and meet their figures.

It's much easier to be nebulous which makes it harder for anyone or any news organization to start checking on where the profit's are going (and it makes it easier to blame the fans for as Hold pointed, out disasterous PR blunders over twnety years)

This is a loggerhead situation. The fans refuse to show up in part because the team considers itself a "small market" franchise in the nation's 3rd largest city and the organization refuses to spend because the fans don't show up.

Nothing is going to change folks until ownership is replaced, either through natural causes or through some type of business manuever.

So I'd have to conclude if the Sox do win something it'll be because of a fluke situation instead of a real concerted effort to win.

Lip

voodoochile
10-02-2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Dick & Others:

I guess I don't have any answer to the dillema (actually I do but it doesn't jive with Dick's business like approach so I won't get into it other then to say if you are in sports to make a profit you shouldn't be in it in the first place...)

The whole issue of Jerry Reinsdorf and the fans is this...simply put the fans DO NOT trust him, they haven't since day one so when he says 'I'll spend when you show up...' many Sox fans natural reaction is 'no you won't, you'll find some excuse not to spend and laugh all the way to the bank.'

In my opinion and I have stated this before, that's why you will never hear the Sox organization give a figure for what they need attendence wise to start spending. You'll never hear the owner or GM in an interview say 'we'll if we can draw 2.5 million for the next two years we'll raise the payroll XX%'. They won't do that because Sox fans may just nail them on it and meet their figures.

It's much easier to be nebulous which makes it harder for anyone or any news organization to start checking on where the profit's are going (and it makes it easier to blame the fans for as Hold pointed, out disasterous PR blunders over twnety years)

This is a loggerhead situation. The fans refuse to show up in part because the team considers itself a "small market" franchise in the nation's 3rd largest city and the organization refuses to spend because the fans don't show up.

Nothing is going to change folks until ownership is replaced, either through natural causes or through some type of business manuever.

So I'd have to conclude if the Sox do win something it'll be because of a fluke situation instead of a real concerted effort to win.

Lip

I suspect you are right. I hope you are wrong. I still want to see an honest evaluation of the books including parking revenue before I am willing to admit the Sox cannot spend more money on payroll and not make a profit.

They drew 2M fans this year which is enough to cover this years payroll right there JUST between tickets and concessions. That is before anything else (memorabilia, advertising, parking, TV Revenue, etc.). Its a shell game, IMO and reinsy needs to at least tell the fans which shell the pea is under if he wants to get back some of the lost fanbase he has directly contributed to.

dickallen15
10-02-2003, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
You don't really expect the attendance to increase dramatically overnight do you? It's going to take at least a year or two of sustained winning to get the attendance up. It's all based on season ticket sales.

Considering the Sox season ticket base was, IIRC, somewhere between 10K-15K, you have to expect a walkup crowd of over 20K to even come close to filling the place. There's not many teams in baseball that can do that day in and day out.

It's going to take winning, winning and more winning year after year to get the daily attendance up to 30K each and every night...

The White Sox had the ASG which increased the season ticket base. They had the most walk ups they have ever had. They were in first place in the middle of September, and still drew less than average. My point is that increasing the payroll $20-30 isn't going to inspire fans to come to games, and if things went wrong, could be the death of the franchise. I agree attendance has to increase gradually. If they keep their payroll in check, be creative, and win, the attendance will climb, and payroll will be increased. The expectation that the team increase their payroll to $75 million, and lose $20 million, but keep doing that year after year is not realistic. You just said you can't increase attendance dramatically overnight, so from a business point of view, you shouldn't increase your expenses (payroll) overnight either. I think people are expecting way too much out of Reinsdorf, and if it was their own money they were playing with , they would have a different opinion on how things should be done.

Iwritecode
10-02-2003, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
The fans refuse to show up in part because the team considers itself a "small market" franchise in the nation's 3rd largest city and the organization refuses to spend because the fans don't show up.

Exactly.

I've been saying this for awhile now. It's a never-ending vicious circle...

dickallen15
10-02-2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
The flubbies didn't pick up players this year? The Sox didn't pick up players this year? The Anglels didn't pick up salary last year?


They only real salary the Cubs picked up was Ramirez, and the fact that he is young and had over 100 RBI makes his salary easier to swallow. The Sox picked up players this year, but didn't pay them, so therefore, it wasn't a salary dump. What salary did the Angels pick up last year?

Iwritecode
10-02-2003, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
The White Sox had the ASG which increased the season ticket base. They had the most walk ups they have ever had. They were in first place in the middle of September, and still drew less than average. My point is that increasing the payroll $20-30 isn't going to inspire fans to come to games, and if things went wrong, could be the death of the franchise. I agree attendance has to increase gradually. If they keep their payroll in check, be creative, and win, the attendance will climb, and payroll will be increased. The expectation that the team increase their payroll to $75 million, and lose $20 million, but keep doing that year after year is not realistic. You just said you can't increase attendance dramatically overnight, so from a business point of view, you shouldn't increase your expenses (payroll) overnight either. I think people are expecting way too much out of Reinsdorf, and if it was their own money they were playing with , they would have a different opinion on how things should be done.

It's a lot easier to increase payroll overnight than it is to increase attendance overnight.

If the increase in payroll leads to a better team and a post-season series or two, it will make the increase in attendance that much quicker. He'll make his money back eventually.

Obviously doing it the current way (spend as little money as possible and hope for the best) isn't working. Maybe it's time to try something different...

voodoochile
10-02-2003, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
They only real salary the Cubs picked up was Ramirez, and the fact that he is young and had over 100 RBI makes his salary easier to swallow. The Sox picked up players this year, but didn't pay them, so therefore, it wasn't a salary dump. What salary did the Angels pick up last year?

Fair enough. I thought the Angels picked up some players last year, but I may be misremembering. I still think the concept that no team will ever take on salary at the deadline ever again is silly...

dickallen15
10-02-2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Fair enough. I thought the Angels picked up some players last year, but I may be misremembering. I still think the concept that no team will ever take on salary at the deadline ever again is silly...

Someday teams will start spending again, although I think its going to be a few years.

Lip Man 1
10-02-2003, 12:36 PM
The question also needs to be asked that if Jerry Reinsdorf can't afford to play the game the way it is being played today what is he still doing in it?

I remember when everyone was calling for Bill Veeck's head because he couldn't or wouldn't spend in the new era of free agency. Shortly after that began he sold out.

It's legtimate to ask the same question of Jerry Reinsdorf if he is in the same financial straights.

And if he is not, then you begin to wonder if in fact, he is making a profit and if the situation is more along the lines of that he is making money but just not enough to suit him.

Then you get into the question of when does profit turn into greed? Especially when dealing with a civic institution that can not be handled in the same way as a corner hardware store or the local bank.

Lip

hold2dibber
10-02-2003, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
The White Sox had the ASG which increased the season ticket base. They had the most walk ups they have ever had. They were in first place in the middle of September, and still drew less than average. My point is that increasing the payroll $20-30 isn't going to inspire fans to come to games, and if things went wrong, could be the death of the franchise.

They didn't draw more because the season ticket base is so small. The way to increase the season ticket base is to win CONSISTENTLY and put a team on the field each year that has a good chance to win. That is the ONLY way it is going to happen. And if they continue to insist upon a sub-Minnesota payroll, that is NOT going to happen.

I agree attendance has to increase gradually. If they keep their payroll in check, be creative, and win, the attendance will climb, and payroll will be increased.

So you do not advocate increasing payroll until the fans flock back. In other words, the onus is on the fans. Why? The fans are staying away because of mismanagement. It is the franchise's responsibility to fix that, not the fans. It's a classic chicken before the egg thing, I guess. But the old axiom that you have to spend money to make money surely holds true here.

And the chances that they can continue to spend so little and win consistently is absurd. Have you been paying attention for the last ten years? Spending this little will allow them to field a really good team (i.e., 90 wins or more) once every four or five years, and be, at best, around .500 the rest of the time. They are NOT going to increase attendance by continuing that cycle again and again.

The expectation that the team increase their payroll to $75 million, and lose $20 million, but keep doing that year after year is not realistic.

Where do you get the "year after year" part? As I previously said, I'm talking about upping the payroll enough to keep a high level of talent. If it doesn't work (i.e., the team doesn't win or the fans don't come back even though the team remains a contender), then they can dismantle it.

QUOTE] You just said you can't increase attendance dramatically overnight, so from a business point of view, you shouldn't increase your expenses (payroll) overnight either. I think people are expecting way too much out of Reinsdorf, and if it was their own money they were playing with , they would have a different opinion on how things should be done. [/QUOTE]

Reinsdorf is the one who got himself into this mess. If he wants to fix it (and maybe he doesn't), he is going to have to roll the dice. The guy made so much friggin' money on the Bulls over the years, you can't tell me he can't afford it. And what I advocate, while not without risk, has a much greater upside potential than keeping the low payroll and hoping to catch lightening in a bottle. If it was my own money, you're damn straight I'd spend it to fix things, particularly when the potential upside is so great.

dickallen15
10-02-2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
The question also needs to be asked that if Jerry Reinsdorf can't afford to play the game the way it is being played today what is he still doing in it?

I remember when everyone was calling for Bill Veeck's head because he couldn't or wouldn't spend in the new era of free agency. Shortly after that began he sold out.

It's legtimate to ask the same question of Jerry Reinsdorf if he is in the same financial straights.

And if he is not, then you begin to wonder if in fact, he is making a profit and if the situation is more along the lines of that he is making money but just not enough to suit him.

Then you get into the question of when does profit turn into greed? Especially when dealing with a civic institution that can not be handled in the same way as a corner hardware store or the local bank.

Lip

Bill Veeck sold out because his 5 year limit on depreciating players was going away, and deteriorating health, not because of pressure from fans. Considering what his attendance is , Reinsdorf put together a pretty good product this season. A product that had the ability to do something very special, but because of mis field management (Jerry Manuel) IMO didn't happen. How could anyone complain about upper White Sox management this year? The effort to field a winner was there, unfortunately the 2000 manager of the year is still living off those laurels.