PDA

View Full Version : Rogers: Ordonez on the trading block.


DrCrawdad
11-12-2003, 06:22 AM
Phil Rogers column today says that Magglio is on the block to be dealt.


http://images.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/thumbnails/columnist/2003-05/7622751.jpg


Sox prepared to trade Ordonez
All-Star's salary demands could strain club's payroll

Having gotten nowhere with talks about a contract extension, the White Sox quietly have begun shopping four-time All-Star Magglio Ordonez.

His salary has outgrown the ability of the organization to pay it—and according to executives gathered at the annual general managers' meetings, there is a very limited pool of teams that even can consider adding it.

One of those is Anaheim, which might be willing to deal closer Troy Percival or center fielder Darin Erstad, but executives from other clubs caution that the return in a potential Ordonez trade probably would not be in keeping with his production…
LINK (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-031111rogersordonezontheblock,1,3470389.column?col l=cs-home-headlines)

soxfan26
11-12-2003, 06:23 AM
For the Tribune registered here is the story (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-031111rogersordonezontheblock,1,3470389.column?col l=cs-home-headlines)

Some tidbits

"executives from other clubs caution that the return in a potential Ordonez trade probably would not be in keeping with his production."

"General manager Ken Williams declined to discuss specific players, including Ordonez. But he acknowledged that it would be impossible to add any significant parts this winter without first moving some salaries."

He also talks about possibilities for Koch, Lee, and GIDPaulie

Not much new information, I think he has been reading the posts around here personally.

I'm hoping we can somehow dump Konerko & Koch and keep Maggs around.

DrCrawdad
11-12-2003, 06:30 AM
I love Magglio. But IMHO Magglio his pay has not equaled his production. If the Sox have to let him go to make room in their budget, buh-bye.

mike squires
11-12-2003, 06:35 AM
Maggs will have just turned 30 by the start of the season. I really think it would be a mistake to let him go. I an see him do what Sammy did and hit 60 homeruns and be a true superstar. OK, maybe not 60 dingers but we need to keep Maggs. Maybe another team would help Maggs get more recognition? I'd miss him.

DrCrawdad
11-12-2003, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by mike squires
Maggs will have just turned 30 by the start of the season. I really think it would be a mistake to let him go. I an see him do what Sammy did and hit 60 homeruns and be a true superstar. OK, maybe not 60 dingers but we need to keep Maggs. Maybe another team would help Maggs get more recognition? I'd miss him.

Hey, I'll miss Magglio too. It's been great watching Magglio's career, largely under the radar of most of the media - national and local. But, the question does Magglio's production merit the HUGE salary he's making already PLUS what he's demanding for the future.

If the Sox can't come to an agreement about a contract after 2004, I'm not sure if I'd rather trade him now or just let him walk and take the compensation picks.

ondafarm
11-12-2003, 07:44 AM
. . .His salary has outgrown the ability of the organization to pay it—and according to executives gathered at the annual general managers' meetings, there is a very limited pool of teams that even can consider adding it. . .

What a load of BS!! The Sox can afford to pay this guy what he is worth. He took a very cheap contract for his first contract and now the bill has finally come due. If the Sox want to act like a small market team then JR should up and move the team to Indianapolis.

dougs78
11-12-2003, 07:54 AM
The Los Angeles Dodgers are interested in both Lee and Konerko and are dangling left-hander Odalis Perez, who was 12-12 with 4.52 ERA last year.

This is pretty good news. Lee and Perez are pretty much straight up on salary, so in effect we would just be dropping Konerko and his salary and feasibly could pick up one of the cheaper options at 1b.

Perez's stats from last year are a little worrisome, but he was a stud in 2002. If we can pick him up, I'd still love to see us add Ponson or another starter.

However, I'm not sure that would really help the payroll enough to free up the money to re-sign and sign the guys we are talking about.

DrCrawdad
11-12-2003, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by ondafarm
. . .His salary has outgrown the ability of the organization to pay it—and according to executives gathered at the annual general managers' meetings, there is a very limited pool of teams that even can consider adding it. . .

What a load of BS!! The Sox can afford to pay this guy what he is worth. He took a very cheap contract for his first contract and now the bill has finally come due. If the Sox want to act like a small market team then JR should up and move the team to Indianapolis.

I hate when the Sox cry poor when they play in a publically funded stadium, virtually rent-free, and collect $13 dollars for the luxury of parking your car in all the lots the Sox control.

To me the question remains though, is Magglio worth what he's going to get next year AND what he wants in the future? Where does he rank statistically with other players and how does his salary compare?

SoxOnTop
11-12-2003, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by dougs78
This is pretty good news. Lee and Perez are pretty much straight up on salary, so in effect we would just be dropping Konerko and his salary and feasibly could pick up one of the cheaper options at 1b.

Perez's stats from last year are a little worrisome, but he was a stud in 2002. If we can pick him up, I'd still love to see us add Ponson or another starter.

However, I'm not sure that would really help the payroll enough to free up the money to re-sign and sign the guys we are talking about.

I still don't trust NL starters. Especially those coming off not so stellar years. With the team ERA they ended up with and their need to add some pop, LA has to step up bigger then Odalis Perez. I would be very dissapointed especially if we lost Lee who isn't terribly expensive this year.

gosox41
11-12-2003, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by ondafarm
. . .His salary has outgrown the ability of the organization to pay it—and according to executives gathered at the annual general managers' meetings, there is a very limited pool of teams that even can consider adding it. . .

What a load of BS!! The Sox can afford to pay this guy what he is worth. He took a very cheap contract for his first contract and now the bill has finally come due. If the Sox want to act like a small market team then JR should up and move the team to Indianapolis.

This is a perfect example of people thinking they know too much about the Sox finances.

When did Ordonez sign a contract belwo market value? Do you think in this current economic environment, Ordonez is worth $15 mill for 4-6 years? That's what he wants. I'd be surprised if Vlad gets that.

Bob

gosox41
11-12-2003, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by SoxOnTop
I still don't trust NL starters. Especially those coming off not so stellar years. With the team ERA they ended up with and their need to add some pop, LA has to step up bigger then Odalis Perez. I would be very dissapointed especially if we lost Lee who isn't terribly expensive this year.

I'd trade PK for Perez. Lee straight up for Perez would me a mistake.

Bob

thepaulbowski
11-12-2003, 08:24 AM
I love Magglio as much as the next guy, but if he is going to command $14 million plus per year, it's not worth it to extend his contract. It's not in this teams best interst to wrap up that much money into one player. He's a great player, just not worth $14 million a year. If the Sox can get good player or two for him, then they should trade him.

Hangar18
11-12-2003, 08:39 AM
I Dont even know where to begin answering these rumors,,,,,
but if we get a Pitcher with a 4.50 era for Konerko AND Lee ....
Im going to be Livid. I think ONDA said it best just a second ago......REINSDORF HAS THE MONEY. HE GOT AWAY PAYING CHEAP FOR MAGGS, BUT NOW THE BILL IS DUE, and he wants to avoid paying it. Thats bs. We need a new Owner.
Teams do NOT just Give away their Franchise Players ....
Im not liking the Direction this team is going in.
Go Ahead Jerry FIx the stadium up all you want You idiot, you
forget, WERE NOT CUB FANS who will just show up no matter how bad the team is :angry:

hold2dibber
11-12-2003, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by dougs78
This is pretty good news. Lee and Perez are pretty much straight up on salary, so in effect we would just be dropping Konerko and his salary and feasibly could pick up one of the cheaper options at 1b.

Perez's stats from last year are a little worrisome, but he was a stud in 2002. If we can pick him up, I'd still love to see us add Ponson or another starter.

However, I'm not sure that would really help the payroll enough to free up the money to re-sign and sign the guys we are talking about.

Uh, I think you (and several others) are misreading this portion of the article. I believe LA is dangling Perez for Lee OR Konerko, not for both. If I'm the Sox, I'd do Perez for Konerko straight up in heart beat. Perez is arb eligible and will probably get about $4 million (he made $3.5 last year). PK is owed over $16 mm over 2 years. That deal alone would allow the Sox to free up big money. As for Lee, I would not trade him for Perez straight up. If the Dodgers would throw in Mota, I might consider it. Maybe.

dickallen15
11-12-2003, 08:47 AM
Magglio is not worth $14 million. That said, he was worth a lot more than the $6 million and $9 million they paid him the past couple years. Trading him because of finances, after exercising a $5 million option on a .230 hitting, strikeout machine, butcher in the field, would be deplorable, unless they come up with equal value.

Hangar18
11-12-2003, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by SoxOnTop
I still don't trust NL starters. Especially those coming off not so stellar years. With the team ERA they ended up with and their need to add some pop, LA has to step up bigger then Odalis Perez. I would be very dissapointed especially if we lost Lee who isn't terribly expensive this year.

One would Think KW learned from Todd Ritchie, who was an NL Starter, and was coming off a Stellar .500 season. It would
be HEINOUS to give them Carlos Lee for Odalis Perez. Heinous.
Thats making me want to Renew My season pkg isnt it? :angry:

Gumshoe
11-12-2003, 08:48 AM
Odalis Perez is just an average pitcher. We hit the crap out of him last year, he didn't impress me at all. He had a few other good outings, but 12-12 and 4.52 in the NL? Come on. KW is begging for Ritchie II if he trades for this guy.

As for Maggs, ondafarm is right on. We paid him diddly CRAP for quite a few years and t he finally got paid. He's by far the best player on our team. You don't trade a guy just because "baseball economics" have all of a sudden a bandwagon of BS.

I think everyone is going too far with this attitude " this guy isn't worth this much, etc." Granted, I like the fact that salaries are now being taken FAR more seriously, and may be trendsettingly less outlandish.

MAGGS is our best player though. When you get to virtually add 4-6K in attendance per game because of the cost of parking that other teams don't have in many cases, (thereby raising our REAL attendance to around 26K avg.) you can't say you cannot pay a guy like Maggs, who is THE guy on your team'

Jerry, this is organizational suidice. I'm sending Ligue after YOU this time

Gumshoe

Hangar18
11-12-2003, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by ondafarm

What a load of BS!! The Sox can afford to pay this guy what he is worth. He took a very cheap contract for his first contract and now the bill has finally come due. If the Sox want to act like a small market team then JR should up and move the team to Indianapolis.

This is the QUOTE of the day Ondafarm ..........
I cant even say it better. It was Reinsdorfs Turn to pay
for the Dinner Tab, but he got up and went to the bathroom,
went thru the Kitchen, and out the Back Door, leaving US
to cover Him again. and Again. and Again

dickallen15
11-12-2003, 08:52 AM
Stay away from Dodger pitchers whose ERA is over 4. Dodger Stadium is the best pitcher's park in the world. Perez's ERA would probably be Koch-like if he came here.

SoxOnTop
11-12-2003, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
I Dont even know where to begin answering these rumors,,,,,
but if we get a Pitcher with a 4.50 era for Konerko AND Lee ....
Im going to be Livid. I think ONDA said it best just a second ago......REINSDORF HAS THE MONEY. HE GOT AWAY PAYING CHEAP FOR MAGGS, BUT NOW THE BILL IS DUE, and he wants to avoid paying it. Thats bs. We need a new Owner.
Teams do NOT just Give away their Franchise Players ....
Im not liking the Direction this team is going in.
Go Ahead Jerry FIx the stadium up all you want You idiot, you
forget, WERE NOT CUB FANS who will just show up no matter how bad the team is :angry:

I agree with you that JR is a cheapskate and he is definitely protecting a larger than necessary profit margin for himself and the rest of the owners. But he certainly did not get away with "paying Mags on the cheap" The 3 year $30 Mil that Mags got was a fair contract at the time he signed it. Do you honestly think that any corner outfielder outside of Bonds is worth 15 million per year in this market?

I love Ordonez as a a player and JR needs to resign him. But if JR won't pony up, then KW is going to have to roll the dice.

hold2dibber
11-12-2003, 09:02 AM
The most important info from the article, I think, is that the Sox project the current roster (NOT including re-signing any free agents) to cost $64 million. The budget is for no more than $58 million. Therefore, the Sox have to drop at least $6 million in salary just to get to budget. If they want to sign ANY free agents (i.e., Robbie Alomar, Sandy Alomar, Daubach, Ponson, Cameron, Graffinino, Tom Gordon, Kenny Rogers or Royce Clayton) they have to drop even more. Realistically, to sign, for example, Graffinino, Ponson and both Alomars will cost the Sox at least $11 million ($1 mm for Tony G., $7 mm for Ponson, $2 mm for R. Alomar, $750,000 for S. Alomar). Therefore, just to make those signings, the Sox would have to reduce current payroll by about $16 million.

I don't want to see Maggs go either, but if keeping him means that Jon Rauch AND Neal Cotts are in the rotation, that Aaron Miles is the starting second baseman, and that Willie Harris is our utility infielder, next season is lost already.

On the other hand, if they can trade Maggs even for a young solid CF or 2B and, perhaps, a live bullpen arm (maybe Adam Kennedy and Francisco Rodriguez from Anaheim) that would results in a net payroll reduction of maybe $10 million. Then trade Konerko for Perez for a net payroll reduction of $4 million and move Koch for Trachsel for another $1.35 million payroll reduction, and you're trimmed $15 mm, plugged at least one hole
in the lineup, created some depth in the rotation and freed up enough money to sign Ponson and maybe Cameron.

Another example: For the same money Maggs will make next year (the last year before he walks), the Sox could sign Ponson ($7 mm), R. Alomar ($2 mm), Tom Gordon ($4 mm) and Graffinino ($1 mm).

Now, having said all this, there is one way around the problem altogether. And that's for JR to open up his wallet. The Cubs, who already own this town, now have a strangle hold. The Sox are playing in a lousy division and have a damn good nucleus. The ballpark is undergoing renovations that seem like they'll really improve the place. The point? If there ever was a time to spend money to make money, the time is now. If the Sox would commit to a $70 mm payroll, they could keep Maggs and sign the free agents they covet (though they'd have to move Lee or Konerko or Koch, or 2 of them to do so). Then they'd have a contender, they'd have their most popular player, and, IMHO, they'd make money.

SoxOnTop
11-12-2003, 09:06 AM
Stop trying to make sense. Someone in the front office might hear you.

RichH55
11-12-2003, 09:08 AM
I've been all over the PK for Perez angle for quite awhile now...good to see it in print, even if it feels like that lessens the chances of it happening

OEO Magglio
11-12-2003, 09:16 AM
I love Maggs but with his salary, if the sox could make a trade that centered around Troy Percival I'd be all for it, also I would love to see Perez for Konerko straight up, that would clear even more salary, and get a guy who could fill our 5th starter spot.

michned
11-12-2003, 09:23 AM
The bottom line is Uncle Jerry is just too cheap to do what it takes. I hate to say it, but until he retires/sells/becomes too old to run the team day-to-day, this team will NEVER go anywhere. If it weren't for Michael Jordan falling into his lap, JR might go down as the worst owner in the history of professional sports.

Man Soo Lee
11-12-2003, 09:33 AM
Mags is in for a rude awakening next winter if he expects $15 million per year.

Can anyone explain Rogers' logic in suggesting a package including Percival or Erstad? With Erstad's injury problems, that contract is terrible. Percival will make $6.5 m less than Mags in '04. It would take most of that difference to sign a serviceable OF bat to play right.

mandmandm
11-12-2003, 09:37 AM
I really like Maggs but is he worth the money? I would like to see a list of teams that would be willing to pay Maggs $15 mil over 4-6 years. I would guess I could use one hand to do it. Even if JR said today that he would add $15 mil to the $58 mil to keep Maggs I would rather use the money to re-sign Everrett and add #3-4 starter.

hold2dibber
11-12-2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by mandmandm
I really like Maggs but is he worth the money? I would like to see a list of teams that would be willing to pay Maggs $15 mil over 4-6 years. I would guess I could use one hand to do it. Even if JR said today that he would add $15 mil to the $58 mil to keep Maggs I would rather use the money to re-sign Everrett and add #3-4 starter.

There are NO teams that will be willing to pay Maggs that kind of money. I really doubt that Vlad will get that kind of money this year and as much as I like Maggs, he's not at Vlad's level. I think the market for someone like Ordonez (.300, 30 HRs, .925 OPS) is about $10 million/year, tops. The Red Sox just tried to Manny Ramirez away for nothing and there were NO takers. And he makes $18 mm/year; as much as I like Maggs, Ramirez is a step above Maggs in terms of production. So I seriously doubt anyone will jump up and pay Maggs $15 mm/year.

thepaulbowski
11-12-2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Realistically, to sign, for example, Graffinino, Ponson and both Alomars will cost the Sox at least $11 million ($1 mm for Tony G., $7 mm for Ponson, $2 mm for R. Alomar, $750,000 for S. Alomar). Therefore, just to make those signings, the Sox would have to reduce current payroll by about $16 million.

I don't want to see Maggs go either, but if keeping him means that Jon Rauch AND Neal Cotts are in the rotation, that Aaron Miles is the starting second baseman, and that Willie Harris is our utility infielder, next season is lost already.

Dibber,

Please stop posting comments that are well thought out and make sense. :)

Seriously, this is the best argument I've seen on this matter and puts Maggs salary in perspective. He signed his contract around the time A-rod signed his. The are only a few teams, if any, that will pay him the money he seems to be asking for or is currently making.

As far as any baseball player being underpaid, give me a break. If the person signs the contract then how are they "underpaid?"

Jerko
11-12-2003, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
I hate when the Sox cry poor when they play in a publically funded stadium, virtually rent-free, and collect $13 dollars for the luxury of parking your car in all the lots the Sox control.

To me the question remains though, is Magglio worth what he's going to get next year AND what he wants in the future? Where does he rank statistically with other players and how does his salary compare?

That's why it's the FANS' fault for not going to the games!

The vicous cycle rolls on....................

fledgedrallycap
11-12-2003, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
I hate when the Sox cry poor when they play in a publically funded stadium, virtually rent-free, and collect $13 dollars for the luxury of parking your car in all the lots the Sox control.

To me the question remains though, is Magglio worth what he's going to get next year AND what he wants in the future? Where does he rank statistically with other players and how does his salary compare?

Not to mention the 40+ Million/Year for TV Rights...

Huisj
11-12-2003, 10:01 AM
Here's the problem: Ordonez makes a lot, and though he is a great hitter and big run producer, the fact that he does cost a lot makes him hard to move. In order to move him, the sox probably would have to take a moderately large salary of another player in the trade. Obviously, this player will have to be a quality player (as in not a roger cedeno type salary), but if he makes a lot, is it worth it to trade for him and be paying just a little bit less than before? Will it be possible to find players of reasonably equal production at a lower price that can be trusted to put up that production (as in not jose guillen or other players who have had one good year in their careers).

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not sure the products recieved and the amount of money saved in a trade would outweigh having to pay ordonez' salary this year. As much as he makes, he would leave a huge hole in the sox lineup, a hole that may not effectively be replaced even with the amount of money freed up.

soxtalker
11-12-2003, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
There are NO teams that will be willing to pay Maggs that kind of money. I really doubt that Vlad will get that kind of money this year and as much as I like Maggs, he's not at Vlad's level. I think the market for someone like Ordonez (.300, 30 HRs, .925 OPS) is about $10 million/year, tops. The Red Sox just tried to Manny Ramirez away for nothing and there were NO takers. And he makes $18 mm/year; as much as I like Maggs, Ramirez is a step above Maggs in terms of production. So I seriously doubt anyone will jump up and pay Maggs $15 mm/year.

The theme that I keep seeing in this and other recent articles about the trading scence in the majors is that there are VERY few teams that are willing to take on salary. There are, of course, the Yankees, but after that maybe the Red Sox and Angels can do it. The Mets are willing to take Koch, but they want us to take their salary problem in exchange. Even the Red Sox want to dump the Ramirez salary. Teams have simply bumped up against their budget constraints. We can argue that JR's should be higher, and I'm sure that there are plenty of fans in almost every market who are making similar arguments about their teams. (Just listen to the fans across town complaining about the "low" budget of the Cubs.)

KingXerxes
11-12-2003, 10:13 AM
I'm not surprised by this at all. It is no secret that the White Sox are pretty jammed up in terms of payroll. SO WHY IN GOD'S NAME DID THEY PICK UP VALENTIN'S OPTION FOR $5,000,000????

I can't stop getting mad over this move. I would contend that they need Tony Graffanino more than they need Valentin - and could have had him for about 1/3rd of the cost. Now - due to the fact that we just had to keep our superstar shortstop there is increased pressure throughout the rest of the roster to come in on budget - and we still have no pitching.

I swear I know 25 guys at my local tavern who could do a better job of handling this mess.

dougs78
11-12-2003, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Uh, I think you (and several others) are misreading this portion of the article. I believe LA is dangling Perez for Lee OR Konerko, not for both. If I'm the Sox, I'd do Perez for Konerko straight up in heart beat. Perez is arb eligible and will probably get about $4 million (he made $3.5 last year). PK is owed over $16 mm over 2 years. That deal alone would allow the Sox to free up big money. As for Lee, I would not trade him for Perez straight up. If the Dodgers would throw in Mota, I might consider it. Maybe.

Well, thats even better news if thats truly the way Rogers intended it. If we could get Perez for PK i'd do it right now. The only thing I'd worry about would be KW thinking Perez was then our answer to the SP question and no longer pursuing a top starter.

However, while I understand Lee has value, I'd want to see what better we'd get for him before I refused to give him up for Perez. Honestly there are alot of good hitting corner outfielders available this offseason. I guess if you think we could get some true quality for him, all the better, but I'd like to see what it is.

bc2k
11-12-2003, 10:32 AM
I'm walking out of class and have to hear some Cubs friend rub it in how Ordonez is gone according to today's Trib.

Our organization sucks. Our expected payroll sucks. I'm sick of reading that 'Ordonez is overpaid, gotta dump him to field a winning team.' That type of thinking from Sox fans is JR brainwashing us. No, we don't need to dump Magglio or Lee; we need to add players through free agency.

The Sox are fielding a competitive team that will contend for the weakest division in the AL, blinding us fans into thinking the goal is to beat the Twins when we should really be thinking about the Series. JR now knows that a white flag is not profitable since fans will avoid Comiskey. He knows that a semi-competitive team with a payroll of less than $60 will keep the park filled with fans who think we're playing for something in 2004, making him a ton of money. JR doesn't want to pay for a World Series team because that would eat into his profits. He wants to field a team just good enough to keep people interested and at the park.

I smell a boycott.

Viva Magglio
11-12-2003, 10:39 AM
There is only one reason the possibility of trading Mágglio Ordóńez exists: Our chairman is a cheapskate. Mágglio is our most popular player, and Mágglio is our best all around player. Yet, our cheapskate chairman and his yes-man general manager seem to have their hearts content on ripping him away from us. Instead of proactively trying to win us championships, the powers that be that run this franchise favor kicking us the fans in the balls instead.

I realize that $14M is a lot of money and understand the "let's get something for him instead of nothing by trading him before he becomes a free agent" philosophy. However, this is not just some average player on our team. This is our best player and closest thing we have to a superstar. Moreover, Mágglio Ordóńez is the franchise's liasion to Chicago's huge and ever growing Latino community.

I heard one caller on the Score say something along the lines "Well, he didn't hit well in the 2000 ALDS and didn't hit against the Twins in September so we should get rid of him." What a complete asswipe. Mágglio does not put up Vlad numbers, but does that mean the numbers he puts up are worthless? In my opinion, Mágglio Ordóńez is a winner on and off the field. The chairman's philosophy should be "What Mágglio wants Mágglio gets." And I think the White Sox are capable of paying Mágglio Ordóńez his just reward.

I will scream if I see one person say "We don't need Maggs, we got Frank!" Some people seem to be glad that Frank is coming back, but these people also seem to believe that the Frank Thomas of the early '90s is the Frank Thomas coming back. Spare me! So moody and past his prime Frank comes back along with José Valentín and all $5M of him. Gee, spending money on them instead of Mágglio makes me really thing we're in this to win.

We are a franchise in the third largest market in the country, and our chariman acts like we're in Pittsburgh. I wish we were doing what our North Side rivals were doing. Amid the talk of penny pinching on our side of town, our crosstown rivals are talking about retooling their club to go further in the playoffs than they did this season. So on top of everything else, we'll have to watch our team suck on the cheap while having to endure our crosstown rivals win and win and win. For this reason alone, we are the most tormented fandom in sports.

At first, I thought about cancelling my reservation for SoxFest and not renewing my season tickets if they trade Mágglio Ordóńez. Now, I am not sure what to do if that happens. For those of us Mággliophiles, it would be a test of our fandom to the White Sox if they got rid of him. Pretty much all of us were White Sox fans before Mágglio and will remain White Sox fans after Mágglio, myself included. But after all the emotion and money I have invested in this franchise over the years being a split-season ticket holder, is this their way of thanking me? Better yet, with all the loyalty we have provided over the years to this franchise, why does the franchise show its lack of gratitude by breaking our hearts?

KingXerxes
11-12-2003, 10:47 AM
I have no problem with Reinsdorf trying to make a profit - none whatsoever, and I suspect that he also believes that in order to make a profit it's far better to compete over the course of a 162 game regular season, than it is to spend the incremental money in order to try and win in the post season. I really can't blame him for trying to unload Ordonez either as $14mm is simply too much money to pay this guy.

The problem Reinsdorf runs is that his fan base is far more cynical than most of his competition, and if he's ever perceived to be doing this - people will stay home. That's why there is so much attention being paid lately to fixing the ballpark and such. He's trying to emphasize the regular season, and the day-to-day rather than trying to win it all. Time will tell if he's able to shift fan base attention.

dickallen15
11-12-2003, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by ˇViva Mágglio!
[Bpaying Mágglio Ordóńez his just reward.

I At first, I thought about cancelling my reservation for SoxFest and not renewing my season tickets if they trade Mágglio Ordóńez. Now, I am not sure what to do if that happens. For those of us Mággliophiles, it would be a test of our fandom to the White Sox if they got rid of him. Pretty much all of us were White Sox fans before Mágglio and will remain White Sox fans after Mágglio, myself included. But after all the emotion and money I have invested in this franchise over the years being a split-season ticket holder, is this their way of thanking me? Better yet, with all the loyalty we have provided over the years to this franchise, why does the franchise show its lack of gratitude by breaking our hearts? [/B]

Just wait to you see how they are going to change the split season ticket groups. That may really tick you off.

mandmandm
11-12-2003, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by dickallen15
Just wait to you see how they are going to change the split season ticket groups. That may really tick you off.

Can you elaborate? Not sure what you mean.

Dadawg_77
11-12-2003, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by dickallen15
Just wait to you see how they are going to change the split season ticket groups. That may really tick you off.


whats happening?

joecrede
11-12-2003, 11:01 AM
How about this:

Ordonez & $5M to the Angels for Kennedy & K-Rod.
Lee, Konerko, and $6M ($3M in '04 & '05) for Mota.
Koch & $3M to Mets

Saves $17M (before accounting for Kennedy, K-Rod and Mota's salaries), fills 2nd base hole and creates a potenially dominant bullpen. Creates holes at first, left and right.

Rocky Soprano
11-12-2003, 11:01 AM
I am so freaking tired of hearing how we cant afford to keep our best players. Magglio is a great player and the fans love him. If management cant open up their wallets and make sure he stays in Chicago for his career then Im sure they will be losing even more fans.

dickallen15
11-12-2003, 11:03 AM
I heard the 3 plans that include 27 games are going by the boards. There's going to be one that includes about 40 games and others that are about 20. This was a ticket rep telling me this, so I don't know if its accurate, but I would guess that it is. Of course, people like me, who let them keep my playoff money, have yet to be contacted on the changes, nor have I received my alleged ASG photo. Ever since my rep got a promotion, my new rep has never contacted me. I called and talked to someone else in the ticket dept. If anyone from the White Sox is reading this please kick Chris in the ticket dept. in the rear, and wake him up. I want the attention that is advertised for season ticketholders.

Dadawg_77
11-12-2003, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by dickallen15
I heard the 3 plans that include 27 games are going by the boards. There's going to be one that includes about 40 games and others that are about 20. This was a ticket rep telling me this, so I don't know if its accurate, but I would guess that it is. Of course, people like me, who let them keep my playoff money, have yet to be contacted on the changes, nor have I received my alleged ASG photo. Ever since my rep got a promotion, my new rep has never contacted me. I called and talked to someone else in the ticket dept. If anyone from the White Sox is reading this please kick Chris in the ticket dept. in the rear, and wake him up. I want the attention that is advertised for season ticketholders.

Actually that may not be a totaly a bad idea, depending on how they break it down.

I had a pretty good rep this past year but in other years it has been lacking. Also the rep I work with changes every year.

kittle42
11-12-2003, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
I Dont even know where to begin answering these rumors,,,,,
but if we get a Pitcher with a 4.50 era for Konerko AND Lee ....
Im going to be Livid. I think ONDA said it best just a second ago......REINSDORF HAS THE MONEY. HE GOT AWAY PAYING CHEAP FOR MAGGS, BUT NOW THE BILL IS DUE, and he wants to avoid paying it. Thats bs. We need a new Owner.
Teams do NOT just Give away their Franchise Players ....
Im not liking the Direction this team is going in.
Go Ahead Jerry FIx the stadium up all you want You idiot, you
forget, WERE NOT CUB FANS who will just show up no matter how bad the team is :angry:

AMEN, Hangar. I honestly thought about not attending a game this year after hearing these rumors discussed this morning and hearing KW on ESPN 1000 last night. I am sick of the Sox acting like they have no money, as well as every other Chicago team.

mandmandm
11-12-2003, 11:13 AM
Dick, was your old rep Tiffany?? I thought she sucked and had a terrible attitude for a salesperson. Her replacement in my case was much better. Why they are messing with the partial plan is beyond me but gives me an excuse to bail. Other than four games a year it it pretty easy to go to Comiskey and get a decent seat. So much for my seats becoming a family heirloom. Just another notch on a long string of ownership incompetence.

Jerko
11-12-2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by dickallen15
I heard the 3 plans that include 27 games are going by the boards. There's going to be one that includes about 40 games and others that are about 20. This was a ticket rep telling me this, so I don't know if its accurate, but I would guess that it is. Of course, people like me, who let them keep my playoff money, have yet to be contacted on the changes, nor have I received my alleged ASG photo. Ever since my rep got a promotion, my new rep has never contacted me. I called and talked to someone else in the ticket dept. If anyone from the White Sox is reading this please kick Chris in the ticket dept. in the rear, and wake him up. I want the attention that is advertised for season ticketholders.

I was wondering how they would re-do the weekend plan if this were true but then a wave hit me. They will probably no longer include the Cub games for the split season holders and just make that weekend a first come first serve money grubbing Cubsuck-fest. I'm sure I'll still be offered my 3 weekends worth of Tiger games though. I bet the price for a split season stadium club membership goes UP too or is only offered to the 40 game plan if it in fact exists.

SoxOnTop
11-12-2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by mandmandm
I really like Maggs but is he worth the money? I would like to see a list of teams that would be willing to pay Maggs $15 mil over 4-6 years. I would guess I could use one hand to do it. Even if JR said today that he would add $15 mil to the $58 mil to keep Maggs I would rather use the money to re-sign Everrett and add #3-4 starter.

I agree with you about Maggs not getting 15 Mil for 4-6 years, but you've got to be insane if you'd be insane to not want Magglio back next year if JR raised the payroll 14 Mil. He's a fan favorite and a guarenteed .300 30 100+. CE could easily fall in the tank again next year.

dickallen15
11-12-2003, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Jerko
I was wondering how they would re-do the weekend plan if this were true but then a wave hit me. They will probably no longer include the Cub games for the split season holders and just make that weekend a first come first serve money grubbing Cubsuck-fest. I'm sure I'll still be offered my 3 weekends worth of Tiger games though. I bet the price for a split season stadium club membership goes UP too or is only offered to the 40 game plan if it in fact exists.

I think the weekend plan was the one that was going up to about 40 games. I think its supposed to be all Friday, Saturday, and Sunday games, plus holidays. Once again, I can't verify this information, but I did hear it from a ticket rep.

kittle42
11-12-2003, 11:21 AM
White Sox = Bears = Hawks = Cubs = Bulls (recently) ......

In the minds of these teams' owners, Chicago = Milwaukee.

I HATE CHICAGO SPORTS.

Jerko
11-12-2003, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by dickallen15
I think the weekend plan was the one that was going up to about 40 games. I think its supposed to be all Friday, Saturday, and Sunday games, plus holidays. Once again, I can't verify this information, but I did hear it from a ticket rep.

That sounds right. 27 game plan, 13 weekends, one extra game a weekend (Fridays). 27 + 13 = 40. I can see it but don't know if I like it. Thanks for the info. I understand you can't verify it but it's nice to be prepared if it happens.

bc2k
11-12-2003, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Rocky Soprano
I am so freaking tired of hearing how we cant afford to keep our best players. Magglio is a great player and the fans love him. If management cant open up their wallets and make sure he stays in Chicago for his career then Im sure they will be losing even more fans.

I don't care if he's not here for his career, just keep him here while he is still putting up Magglio-type numbers. Forget this love fest with fan favorites, I want to win.

Rocky Soprano
11-12-2003, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by bc2k
I don't care if he's not here for his career, just keep him here while he is still putting up Magglio-type numbers. Forget this love fest with fan favorites, I want to win.


I didnt say keep him cause the fans love him. He is a great player that is going to produce every year. The fact that the fans love him, is just an added bonus.

Why cant we have a payroll of at least 70MM?

SELL THE FREAKING TEAM ALREADY YOU GREEDY BASTARDS!

CubKilla
11-12-2003, 11:40 AM
My two cents..... if Maggs is going to be dealt, and I think dealing him is a mistake, the White Sox better get fair market value for him. Percival is a much better closer than our current waste of $6 million, but a one-inning..... two at the most..... pitcher IS NOT worth one of the best RF's in the AL..... arguably, MLB. Erstad is too injury prone. When's the last time Maggs has missed a game? But, from the sounds of it, Maggs will be a strict salary dump. And with "3 for 1" as our GM, the same GM that signed a broken closer to a neighborhood contract of $10 million to show-up his ex-closer..... among other great deals..... I'm resigning myself to the fact that no one we get will be comparable to Maggs. And we'll probably pay some of Maggs '04 salary. Pretty much SOP for KW.

'04 is quickly going down the crap chute. Just sell Reinsdorf!

voodoochile
11-12-2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by Jerko
That sounds right. 27 game plan, 13 weekends, one extra game a weekend (Fridays). 27 + 13 = 40. I can see it but don't know if I like it. Thanks for the info. I understand you can't verify it but it's nice to be prepared if it happens.

Makes sense because the weekend packages are more popular than the weeknight ones, so they are trying to get more money from people who want those games. At least it is an attempt to increase the season ticket base.

Trading Magglio is a money decision as usual. If they do it, they won't get fair market value from him, but if they don't, they will be stuck in a viscious cycle of offering arbitration when Maggs doesn't sign a long term deal.

I like Maggs and hope he plays here a long time, but I am tired of athletes trying to break the bank all the time too...

Mammoo
11-12-2003, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
I'd trade PK for Perez. Lee straight up for Perez would me a mistake.

Bob

I agree. If you trade Carlos Lee you have to get more than a pitcher with an ERA in the high fours! :?:

mandmandm
11-12-2003, 11:57 AM
Is there a chance that we would get Bartolo back similar to the Greg Maddux situation last year?

bobj4400
11-12-2003, 12:01 PM
Magg's agent may want 4-6 years at 15 mil per, but after sheffield and vlad both get less than that this offseason, he is going to have to adjust his wishes. Why dont we pay Magg's the 14 mil this year, than re-sign him next year at market value, which will probably be closer to 10 mil/per. In this market, there is no way we will get equal value back in a trade for Ordonez. He makes too much money.

Unfortunately, I dont see this scenario occurring with JR calling the shots...

CubKilla
11-12-2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by mandmandm
Is there a chance that we would get Bartolo back similar to the Greg Maddux situation last year?

Probably not. Bartolo wants all his money up front..... no deferrals. It is being widely reported now that the White Sox offer of a contract to Bartolo of 3 yrs./$36-40 million was VERY heavily laden with incentives and salary deferrals. SOP yet again.

Dadawg_77
11-12-2003, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
I think the weekend plan was the one that was going up to about 40 games. I think its supposed to be all Friday, Saturday, and Sunday games, plus holidays. Once again, I can't verify this information, but I did hear it from a ticket rep.

That sucks, I wish they had a plan which gave you a ticket to every series. I love White Sox baseball, but three games in a row, two of which will be night games, is a little much.

Dadawg_77
11-12-2003, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Probably not. Bartolo wants all his money up front..... no deferrals. It is being widely reported now that the White Sox offer of a contract to Bartolo of 3 yrs./$36-40 million was VERY heavily laden with incentives and salary deferrals. SOP yet again.

Maddux came back via arbitration. If the payroll is as bad as Kenny says it is, expect the Sox not to offer it.

longshot7
11-12-2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
How about this:

Ordonez & $5M to the Angels for Kennedy & K-Rod.
Lee, Konerko, and $6M ($3M in '04 & '05) for Mota.
Koch & $3M to Mets

Saves $17M (before accounting for Kennedy, K-Rod and Mota's salaries), fills 2nd base hole and creates a potenially dominant bullpen. Creates holes at first, left and right.

I'm not going to even dignify this with a response. Oh wait, I just did.

None of the above makes sense - they're grossly one-sided. Who are we - the 98 Marlins?

Perez for Konerko straight-up is a good deal. Perez is a lot better than his numbers imply. I saw him the last few years - he can be real good - if he's happy and keeps his mouth shut. Mota is not worth a bag of sunflower seeds.

dickallen15
11-12-2003, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
That sucks, I wish they had a plan which gave you a ticket to every series. I love White Sox baseball, but three games in a row, two of which will be night games, is a little much.

That's just it. The Friday's will screw up the other 2 plans, and weekend plan holders who can't make a commitment to those other 13 games will have to go with one of the other plans, and will have their seat priority go to the back of the line. Those with the other plans, may want more games, and will be screwed as well.

joecrede
11-12-2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
How about this:

Ordonez & $5M to the Angels for Kennedy & K-Rod.
Lee, Konerko, and $6M ($3M in '04 & '05) for Mota.
Koch & $3M to Mets

Originally posted by longshot7
I'm not going to even dignify this with a response. Oh wait, I just did.

None of the above makes sense - they're grossly one-sided. Who are we - the 98 Marlins?

Perez for Konerko straight-up is a good deal. Perez is a lot better than his numbers imply. I saw him the last few years - he can be real good - if he's happy and keeps his mouth shut. Mota is not worth a bag of sunflower seeds.

One-sided in favor of?

I can't take your talent evaluation skills seriously if you really have that low of an opinion of Mota.

Deadguy
11-12-2003, 01:16 PM
If contract extension talks aren't going favorably, and we can get an impact player for Ordonez, then make the trade.

I think it's becoming pretty obvious that Magglio will not be in a Sox uniform in 2005.

oheeoh...magglio
11-12-2003, 01:19 PM
I just got done reading this thread, very interesting discussion on here, wish I could have jumped in earlier. Anyways, as much as I like Mags, I almost think at some point we have to trade him. He's a very good ballplayer, but in today's market, there is no way he is worth 15 million dollars. Fact is, now he would likely only make between 8 and 10 million a year, barely over half the 15 million he would make here. The White Sox payroll was in the 60 million dollar range last year IIRC, which means if that didn't rise very much, mags would be taking between 1/4 and 1/5 of our total payroll for 25 players. I dont know if anybody is worth that much, especially a soon to be thirty something corner outfielder who isn't really GREAT at anything, but really good at a lot of things. And if mags expects 15 million on the free agent market, he is simply fooling himself. I believe with that said, that if we trade Magglio, the Sox will have to eat at least 1/3 of his salary, but if we can get a good trade offer and rid ourselves of a good chunk of Mags salary, I think we would have to do it. It's the price you pay for cheap ownership I suppose.

Lip Man 1
11-12-2003, 01:25 PM
Just a few points.....

Is anybody really surprised the Sox are shopping Mags as a "economic" move? I mean they've pulled this off before, remember the White Flag Deal? and trading McDowell to New York for three minor leaguers because they had to make up lost revenue from the labor impasse of 94? A leopard can't change his spots. This is standard operating proceedure for this organization.

To me what was the most salient point of the story was the disclosure that the Sox payroll next year, according to Sox sources, will be under 60 million.

The White Sox draw almost two million fans last year and this is how they pay those fans back.

Just something to think about this season if the Sox aren't doing well and you are debating about whether or not to go to an extra game or two regardless.

Lip

hold2dibber
11-12-2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by longshot7
Perez for Konerko straight-up is a good deal. Perez is a lot better than his numbers imply. I saw him the last few years - he can be real good - if he's happy and keeps his mouth shut. Mota is not worth a bag of sunflower seeds.

I would do Konerko for Perez straight up in a heart beat - but I'm doubtful (despite the media reports) that the Dodgers would. But I would also do Konerko for Mota in a heartbeat - and I'd seriously consider Mota and Perez for Lee. I agree with your assessment of Perez, but I don't get your dislike for Mota (other than the fact that he is something of a dunce, from what I hear). Here are his numbers from '03:

105 IP, 78 hits (!), 27 BBs, 99 Ks, .206 BAA (!), 0.99 WHIP (!), 1.97 ERA (!)

Those are absolutely dominating numbers. If you add Mota, you don't necessarily need to go out and pick up another right handed reliever for the end of games. He and Marte can share closing duties (or he can set up for Marte).

oheeoh...magglio
11-12-2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Just a few points.....

Is anybody really surprised the Sox are shopping Mags as a "economic" move? I mean they've pulled this off before, remember the White Flag Deal? and trading McDowell to New York for three minor leaguers because they had to make up lost revenue from the labor impasse of 94? A leopard can't change his spots. This is standard operating proceedure for this organization.

To me what was the most salient point of the story was the disclosure that the Sox payroll next year, according to Sox sources, will be under 60 million.

The White Sox draw almost two million fans last year and this is how they pay those fans back.

Just something to think about this season if the Sox aren't doing well and you are debating about whether or not to go to an extra game or two regardless.

Lip

I'm not necessarily saying I agree with dealing Mags, but if your payroll is in the 60 million dollar range, you can't afford to be paying one man on your 25 man roster 15 million dollars and still be competitive unless you are extremely fortunate (see marlins, florida and rodriguez, pudge, although he only made 10 million last season.) Fact of the matter is you have to trade mags if you are cutting payroll, one man taking up 1/4 of the payroll just won't work for this team IMO.

Iwritecode
11-12-2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
The White Sox draw almost two million fans last year and this is how they pay those fans back.

It must be because poor JR had to actually pay rent for the first time in years.

See what we get for finally showing up? Once again it's all the fans fault...

hold2dibber
11-12-2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by oheeoh...magglio
I'm not necessarily saying I agree with dealing Mags, but if your payroll is in the 60 million dollar range, you can't afford to be paying one man on your 25 man roster 15 million dollars and still be competitive unless you are extremely fortunate (see marlins, florida and rodriguez, pudge, although he only made 10 million last season.) Fact of the matter is you have to trade mags if you are cutting payroll, one man taking up 1/4 of the payroll just won't work for this team IMO.

Agreed. There are three options:

(1) Re-negotiate and extension w/Maggs under which he agrees to reduce or defer his '04 salary;

(2) Up the payroll to at least $70 million; or

(3) Trade Maggs (or 2 of: Lee, Konerko and Koch) for low cost talent.

Since it appears that neither number 1 nor number 2 are going to happen, no. 3 is the only way out. I surely wish JR chose no. 2 - and I personally think it would be the smart thing to do, but it's almost certainly not going to happen. So you have to go with no. 3 if you want any chance of being a division winner next year. Presumably, KW will shop them all and hopefully he gets some major league talent that can help right away. That's about the most you can hope for.

JC456
11-12-2003, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by SoxOnTop
Stop trying to make sense. Someone in the front office might hear you.

Don't worry, they're deaf!!

oheeoh...magglio
11-12-2003, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Agreed. There are three options:

(1) Re-negotiate and extension w/Maggs under which he agrees to reduce or defer his '04 salary;

(2) Up the payroll to at least $70 million; or

(3) Trade Maggs (or 2 of: Lee, Konerko and Koch) for low cost talent.

Since it appears that neither number 1 nor number 2 are going to happen, no. 3 is the only way out. I surely wish JR chose no. 2 - and I personally think it would be the smart thing to do, but it's almost certainly not going to happen. So you have to go with no. 3 if you want any chance of being a division winner next year. Presumably, KW will shop them all and hopefully he gets some major league talent that can help right away. That's about the most you can hope for.

Yes, number 1 isn't likely since mags thinks he will get 15 million on the FA market by what i'm hearing (haha yeah right), and we all know Uncle Jerry isn't going to raise payroll, so now it's pretty much up to KW to get some players for Mags. I hate to see him go at this point, but he has to if we aren't goint to raise payroll so that we aren't spending such a high percentage of the payroll on Magglio. SELL JERRY SELL!!!!

Twin Killing
11-12-2003, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by bobj4400
Magg's agent may want 4-6 years at 15 mil per, but after sheffield and vlad both get less than that this offseason, he is going to have to adjust his wishes. Why dont we pay Magg's the 14 mil this year, than re-sign him next year at market value, which will probably be closer to 10 mil/per. In this market, there is no way we will get equal value back in a trade for Ordonez. He makes too much money.

Unfortunately, I dont see this scenario occurring with JR calling the shots...

I agree with this. I think KW needs to hold his cards a little longer on this and let the market play out. Sheffield and Vlads should provide a good barometer on Maggs' worth. If they aren't pulling in the $$ Maggs is currently asking for, he has no leverage in any ongoing negotiation.

Trading Maggs now for less than value because his agent is CURRENTLY asking for 15M for 4-6 years is a panic trade. Make him bring his case to the table and KW can bring his. Perhaps you can get the best case which would be to lock Maggs into a contract during his prime years for much less than what he is currently asking for.

duke of dorwood
11-12-2003, 02:04 PM
Talk like this should stir unanimous outrage, but it doesnt here because of crap we are fed every year by ownership . Face it, we will NEVER be contenders for it all while this regime is here. The emotion I waste on this team every year is running out. Until Reinsdorf is gone, this is what we will be. And I for one am sick of being a second class team with minimal expectations

Lip Man 1
11-12-2003, 02:06 PM
Folks perhaps I didn't make my main point clear enough and for that I apologize.

The Sox have always claimed that if the fans supported them they would take the appropriate steps to raise payroll and produce a championship team.

Williams himself was quoted last Summer as saying he hoped the Sox would win something so that "I won't have to try to piece this together every year on a 50 million dollar payroll..."

Well the fans supported the Sox last year. They drew almost two million fans. Where's the payback?

It's like I have said in the past, the Sox have never stated tangible numbers for attendence figures in order to raise the payroll and enable them to make a reasonable profit.

The reason to me is obvious. Because if they stated a tangible number (2 million, 2.3 million, 3 million) Sox fans are onery enough to show up and force them to honor their word.

The Sox have never (and will never) state such numbers because they have no intention of ever raising the payroll to even a median MLB number (which stands at 70 million right now)

This was a chance to make a reasonable raise in payroll to show the fans they are going to honor their words if the fans show up. Well obviously, according to Rogers' Sox sources, they are not.

They have had chances in the past (i.e. early 90's) to raise payroll to astounding levels when they were drawing at least 2.5 million per year...they did not.

To me their words are meaningless and I assume from history they never had any intentions of raising payroll. perhaps because of Reinsdorf's published comments against the players union.

Granted I am biased against Uncle Jerry but how anyone can defend the organization in the wake of what has transpired in the past when Sox fans have come out and supported them is
beyond my comprehension.

For people like gosox41, who take a logical business like view of Reinsdorf and his "obligations" to the Chicago sports community all I can say is that I have absolutely no problem with the White Sox making a profit. They took the risk and they deserve it.

However regardless of business, when a desire for profit turns to greed and people get hurt (i.e. lose jobs, have to pay higher prices for the same goods, am defrauded of money a la Enron, or in this case have to wait forever for a championship team) that is absolutely, positively wrong and I have no sympathy for any business like that, especially one like this organization that is to blame in many ways for the situation they are currently in.

I have no doubt the Sox are making large amounts of money at the expense of the fans, the circumstancial evidence is overwhelming, the number of published books and magazine articles stating the same are numerous and all of those divergent sources don't have a grudge against owners. From John Heylar, to Forbes Business Magazine to other authors, to links provided on this web site, to stories on Jerry Reinsdorf like in Sports Illustrated, all are stating or inferring the same thing.

With respect I don't need to listen to sources telling some of our fellow fans to "trust them," that the Sox aren't making a profit. The rational given is that 'why would these people lie?' or 'I've known them for years.' This organization has a history of lying, manipulating and arrogance almost from day one, and again with respect, unless you are an investor in the Sox, an organization known for paranoia against any outsiders... from fans, to the media to player agents, how can you be absolutely sure that these same sources are telling you the truth, regardless of how long you've known them?

"Blood is thicker then water."

I apologize for the length of this post. I was trying to articulate exactly what I've been feeling the past few days.

Lip

maurice
11-12-2003, 02:14 PM
If they've made the decision to trade Maggs, they need to do it as quickly as possible. The purpose of the trade is to free up cash for other moves, including FAs. If they wait too long to pull the trigger, the FAs they're targeting (Ponson and Castillo) will be off the market.

After the Koch trade last season, I wouldn't be shocked to see KW overpay for a closer, but (notwithstanding the rejected Garland/Singleton trade) it now should be obvious to KW that Erstad is a bum.

Chisoxfn
11-12-2003, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Gumshoe
Odalis Perez is just an average pitcher. We hit the crap out of him last year, he didn't impress me at all. He had a few other good outings, but 12-12 and 4.52 in the NL? Come on. KW is begging for Ritchie II if he trades for this guy.

As for Maggs, ondafarm is right on. We paid him diddly CRAP for quite a few years and t he finally got paid. He's by far the best player on our team. You don't trade a guy just because "baseball economics" have all of a sudden a bandwagon of BS.

I think everyone is going too far with this attitude " this guy isn't worth this much, etc." Granted, I like the fact that salaries are now being taken FAR more seriously, and may be trendsettingly less outlandish.

MAGGS is our best player though. When you get to virtually add 4-6K in attendance per game because of the cost of parking that other teams don't have in many cases, (thereby raising our REAL attendance to around 26K avg.) you can't say you cannot pay a guy like Maggs, who is THE guy on your team'

Jerry, this is organizational suidice. I'm sending Ligue after YOU this time

Gumshoe

Paying a guy diddly crap during the few first years is part of the game. Everyone gets paid diddly crap when they first come up and after a few years of proving themselves they get rewarded as they are no eligible for arbitration or free agency and a team has a reason to pay him.

Its a part of the game and players that develop into stars right out of the gate will be underpaid for a bit.

Look at what the Yanks have been paying Soriano..butkus, but thats just how it is, and its the only reason a team like the Marlins was able to win it all this year. If they had to worry about signing all their younger players to bigger deals already (Although they have to with some of the players) they would of had a completely different and utterly pathetic team.

soxtalker
11-12-2003, 02:56 PM
Note the comment in the article from another baseball excutive that Maggs would be hard to move at that salary. Obviously, there is somewhat of an impass between Maggs (agent) and the Sox on the negotiations. Well, salaries had been going up a lot over the past few years, and now they seem to be topping out in general. Oh, maybe there will be a few players that will get sizable increases -- e.g., Colon. But there are also a record number of FA's, and most teams don't want to take on additional salary.

Could it be that we are seeing a little back-door negotiating in the newspapers?

nasox
11-12-2003, 02:58 PM
REINSDORF IS A LOAD OF FRIGGIN CRAP! We have the money to pay Maggs-I don't care if Maggs didn't "equal his salary in output" or do anything like that. He didn't have a great season this year-it was good not great. But he is 29 has at least 5 good years left in him (being on the conservative side) and has consistently been one of the best players in the game for the past few years. Reinsdorf not opening his pockets shows he is not commited to winning a world series ring with the sox. He just wants to get rich as hell and swindle money out of white sox fans. We promise to come and come, drawing nearly 2 million last year and the White Sox for the most part were exciting and played well. They promised us if we showed up they would pay for a winner. The marlins winning was bad because now JR thinks he can just do it like they did but right now we are in no position to rebuild. Trading Maggs will just disrupt out fanbase even more. I wont come out to as many games next season if the talent we have is inferior and we don't play well. JR saying we are small market and all that crap is totally rediculous- he acts like John McGraw (?) who i think was the owner that moved the dogders to LA and made a ****load of money off of it and told the league he was losing money. I have lost the tiny bit of faith I still had in JR all through these years. Even the Hawks are clearing house and trying to put a good team out (Tuomo Ruutu is a perfect example). This latest fiasco concerning Maggs is just another sign showing how dishonest, greedy, and altogether evil JR is. I don't care how maniacal and tyrannical Steinbrenner is, at least he fields a good team every year by opening his pockets.

Disgruntled Fan

Chisoxfn
11-12-2003, 03:02 PM
Maggs is an 8 mill a year player. If he was making 10 mill this year, the Sox could probably sit through it, let him see that Vladdy only gets 12-13 mill and that Sheff gets a bit less. He's not in either of their classes and you'd think that it would finally hit him and the Sox could work something out.

The problem is at 14 mill the Sox can't afford (We can argue this all day long, but if the payroll is 55-58 mill, then you can't pay one guy 14 mill, unless he's the best in the game) to hold onto him and let him figure that he's really inflated his value.

So in my opinion the Sox have two options, sit and and hold onto him for the season, but like I say above they can't do that and compete at least not likely. Or deal him now and get something in return. Thats if you can't get it through his head that he's seriously over-valued himself.

Hangar18
11-12-2003, 03:04 PM
LIP, your last post is Right On The Money

StockdaleForVeep
11-12-2003, 03:18 PM
The thought of this trade is "ncorgbl"

Mags is a franchise player who showed 2 years ago what he is capable of when he put up his career numbers. This year was a sub par year for every sox player with the exceptions of C.LEE and Loiaza. Percival and Erstad would be adding 2 mill more to our payroll and erstad is the same age if not older than magglio. Erstad is not even an offensive player, but plain offensive. I woulda agreed to getting him for garland last season if not for ole walt and his disney shenanigans. Adding Percy would give us now 3 closers, 2 of which would be making good money.

Point is this, on paper we have a solid team as it is, i feel we should add, not subtract and we can put it on the board, ye-es, and ozzie can try getting his second ring this time.

Win1ForMe
11-12-2003, 03:38 PM
I guess I have nothing to say about this situation that hasn't already been said. It's such a same and such an ass-backwards way of how an organization should be run. And then they'll cry how they have a limited budget and how they have to make the best use of it BLAH BLAH BLAH.... And then the front office will point to attendance and ask why it hasn't increased. This whole regime is just such a joke.

And I hope Kenny Williams isn't stupid enough to take back the contracts of Erstad and Percival. That would absolutely defeat the purpose of the trade which is to get good and cheap, not OK and expensive.

OH, and *** did we excercise that $5 mil. option on Jose Valentin?!?!?!? Seriously, did Kenny wet his pants thinking he might lose Valentin's feared left-handed "stick"?

Foulke You
11-12-2003, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
LIP, your last post is Right On The Money

Agreed. Couldn't have said it better myself Lip. Right on the money with both of your posts. The fact that this franchise is only planning on a $58 million dollar payroll is insulting to me as a Sox fan, and insulting to the city of Chicago.

They are going to cry poor on us again while the small town Minnesota Twins in their crappy out of date charmless dome is going to spend the same amount as our White Sox who are enjoying 3rd largest market TV/radio revenue, a publicly built modern stadium loaded with luxury suites, no competition from outside food and souvenir venders, and $80 million in renovations paid for by US Cellular.

There isn't a shred of forward thinkers in the White Sox front office. It's all about how much money they can make RIGHT NOW and they always miss out on the bigger picture that spending money on a contender can do for the team.

$58 million payroll after 2 million fans showed up last year? 58 milllion dollar payroll after the run the Cubs had putting a further stranglehold on the hearts and minds of casual baseball fans and local media in this town? One word describes this franchise's ownership P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C!

oheeoh...magglio
11-12-2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Win1ForMe

OH, and *** did we excercise that $5 mil. option on Jose Valentin?!?!?!? Seriously, did Kenny wet his pants thinking he might lose Valentin's feared left-handed "stick"?

I was wondering the same thing myself, I was surprised the boards around here weren't in total outrage when that happened. Jose is not worth 5 million dollars, that was not a smart move at all IMO.

Rocky Soprano
11-12-2003, 03:57 PM
Yes Lips post was great.

I dont know why I still cheer for this team when every year we get hurt. But for some reason I think this off season is going to hurt the most.

Foulke You
11-12-2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by oheeoh...magglio
I was wondering the same thing myself, I was surprised the boards around here weren't in total outrage when that happened. Jose is not worth 5 million dollars, that was not a smart move at all IMO.

Yeah, as much as I love Jose Valentin as a player, it was dumb to pick up that option if the team is in such "dire" financial health that it must dump payroll now. As King Xerxes said in an earlier post, they could have re-upped on Graffanino for around $1 million and used the $4 million towards keeping more talented younger players in their prime like Lee and Ordonez. Ugh. :(:

oheeoh...magglio
11-12-2003, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
As King Xerxes said in an earlier post, they could have re-upped on Graffanino for around $1 million and used the $4 million towards keeping more talented younger players in their prime like Lee and Ordonez. Ugh. :(:

Yeah, that's a sickening thought, what a waste of 4 million bucks. And i'm not sure if this is true, somebody correct me if i'm wrong, but I heard Valentin was told along with this extension that he would be receiving reduced playing time? If that's true, why the heck would you give a guy receiving "reduced playing time" 5 million dollars? Again, one of my friends told me that, so i'm not sure if it's true, but if it is, what the heck is upper management doing? Although even if this 5 million was given to Jose for him to play 162 games, it's still stupid IMO.

Nick@Nite
11-12-2003, 04:36 PM
Memo to JR --

You already know what it's like to be rich... Stop Trying To Manage The Team's Payroll On A (BLEEP)-DAMN SHOE STRING! :angry:

-------------------

I'm not advocating the Sox try to keep up with the freakin Yankees... If Maggs is dealt, we had better get TWO bona-fide all-stars in return, AND at least one blue-chip prospect.

Screw baseball economics... if JR wants to see the Sox in the WS, he needs to use a damn crowbar and pry open his wallet... Jerry, the choice yours.

-------------------

:reinsy
Would this man pay a nickle to watch Niagara Falls flow backwards?

:KW
"Probably not"

:maggs
This man should finish his potential HOF career with the White Sox! (<-- my words)

voodoochile
11-12-2003, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by oheeoh...magglio
Yeah, that's a sickening thought, what a waste of 4 million bucks. And i'm not sure if this is true, somebody correct me if i'm wrong, but I heard Valentin was told along with this extension that he would be receiving reduced playing time? If that's true, why the heck would you give a guy receiving "reduced playing time" 5 million dollars? Again, one of my friends told me that, so i'm not sure if it's true, but if it is, what the heck is upper management doing? Although even if this 5 million was given to Jose for him to play 162 games, it's still stupid IMO.

I am wondering if Valentin threatened to file a grievance with the MLBPA. He missed his incentive numbers by such a small amount (less than 2 games) he might have argued that the Sox intentionally prevented him from getting there. I don't know if that would have held up in a court of law or arbitrator's hearing but the Sox may have decided to not push their luck, especially with the colusion case being threatened.

I can only assume Jose agreed to bat lefty exclusively during winter and spring so he could do it during the season too.

poorme
11-12-2003, 04:42 PM
If that's true Jose Mesa of the Phillies will be filing a greivance.

Frater Perdurabo
11-12-2003, 04:43 PM
What was that old saying about it being better to trade a player a year too early than a year too late?

Maggs is a great hitter and good RF. It would be best for him to play his whole career at 35th & Shields. But they ought to trade him if they won't commit the payroll dollars to re-sign him for 2005.

jabrch
11-12-2003, 04:43 PM
I'm not advocating the Sox try to keep up with the freakin Yankees... If Maggs is dealt, we had better get TWO bona-fide all-stars in return, AND at least one blue-chip prospect.


Um, now why exactly would the Yankees give us two all-stars and a blue chip prospect for one all-star RF who makes 14mm and is a FA after this season?

Best case for him would be Soriano - gets us a 40/40 2B/CF who is locked down for a few years more at an affordable price. In a perfect world, they'd even take Koch/Konerko. And in a dream world, they take Konerko and Koch and give us back Nick Johnson and Weaver.

Unless Mags wants to sign a 3 year extension at a reasonable salary given market conditions. (Vlad finding interest only at 15mm per - so Mags should be about 10-12 is my guess)

Foulke You
11-12-2003, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I can only assume Jose agreed to bat lefty exclusively during winter and spring so he could do it during the season too.

I haven't heard anything about this. Jose is going to be batting exclusively lefty in the winter leagues? Man, I hope he does decide to bat lefty all the time. He could probably increase his overall average at least 30 points.

oheeoh...magglio
11-12-2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I am wondering if Valentin threatened to file a grievance with the MLBPA. He missed his incentive numbers by such a small amount (less than 2 games) he might have argued that the Sox intentionally prevented him from getting there. I don't know if that would have held up in a court of law or arbitrator's hearing but the Sox may have decided to not push their luck, especially with the colusion case being threatened.

I can only assume Jose agreed to bat lefty exclusively during winter and spring so he could do it during the season too.

Very interesting point you bring up about Valentin filing a grievance Voodoo, i never thought of that. I doubt he could have proved it though, and I doubt the white sox would overpay jose by that much just to avoid taking a case like that to court, a case jose likely wouldn't win. But with this ownership, who knows.....

oheeoh...magglio
11-12-2003, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Frater Perdurabo
What was that old saying about it being better to trade a player a year too early than a year too late?

Maggs is a great hitter and good RF. It would be best for him to play his whole career at 35th & Shields. But they ought to trade him if they won't commit the payroll dollars to re-sign him for 2005.

Hey welcome aboard :D: .

voodoochile
11-12-2003, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
I haven't heard anything about this. Jose is going to be batting exclusively lefty in the winter leagues? Man, I hope he does decide to bat lefty all the time. He could probably increase his overall average at least 30 points.

Oh no. That was purely speculation on my part. I just can't believe the Sox would have brought him back unless he said he would try.

voodoochile
11-12-2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Frater Perdurabo
What was that old saying about it being better to trade a player a year too early than a year too late?

Maggs is a great hitter and good RF. It would be best for him to play his whole career at 35th & Shields. But they ought to trade him if they won't commit the payroll dollars to re-sign him for 2005.

Welcome Aboard! :D:

Foulke You
11-12-2003, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Oh no. That was purely speculation on my part. I just can't believe the Sox would have brought him back unless he said he would try.

Ah, my bad, I misunderstood you.

FanOf14
11-12-2003, 05:01 PM
:tomatoaward

jeremyb1
11-12-2003, 05:26 PM
The entire key to trading Maggs is what we receive in return and how any money we save is reinvested in the team. I have no doubt in my mind that while Maggs' production is outstanding, if we could simply rid ourselves of his 14 million dollars he's owed next season and reinvest that money directly in free agency wisely we'd be much better off next season. We could resign Everett who's expected to sign a one year deal for around 5-6 million at the absolute most and we'd have replaced the majority of Maggs' production in rightfield (.876 vs. .926 OPS last season). That would leave us around 10 million with which we could probably sign a solid starter (Ponson or Escobar) and one or two impact relievers (Fouke, Urbina, Hawkins or maybe Leskanic and Gordon).

The problems with the above scenario starts with the fact that we're apparently already nearly 8 million dollars over budget and we have at least two huge contracts (Koch and Konerko) we won't be able to move without taking quite a bit of salary back. It certainly seems to me that it was irresponsible for KW to pick up Jose's extension when we were already over budget. It seems to me like we're not guaranteed that we can move any of our large contracts. If that's the case, what's our contingency plan? Could we be forced to non-tender Buehrle and Carlos, giving them up for nothing, if we can't meet payroll? Again, I don't have the knowledge KW does, but I fail to see how we have guaranteed optoins to lop off 8 million dollars!! in payroll in this economic climate. No one wants to take on salary, especially not that of unproductive players.

Additionally, it also seems irresponsible for Reinsdorf to have signed off on Maggs' extension if he didn't plan to raise payroll unless we went deep into the playoffs or won the series. Paying one player a fourth of your payroll isn't very easy with a payroll our size. JR needed to consider that before agreeing to shell out the money.

The biggest problem with trading Maggs becomes who will take him and what will we have to take on in return. If we can move him without taking on salary, I think the deal is a success regardless of what we receive in return, especially if the sources in Rogers' article are correct and there's next to no chance of Maggs' returning next season. However if we're forced to take on 15 million over the next two seasons (Percival) or even especially 24 odd million over three seasons for a player with horrific offensive production (Erstad), this franchise has very little chance of being competitive in the future.

Someone raised the idea of paying part of Maggs' salary in one post and that may be a good idea. If we need to pay 4 or 5 million for other teams not to insist we take a large contract in return, we'd be better off going that route that trading for a mediocre player with a huge cotract.

With Konerko and Koch, and Koch in particular since he has only one year left on his deal, we may be best off just paying however much of their contracts we need to in order to convince another team to take them off our hands. For instance, if Koch performs similarly to last season, we'd be better off dealing him and four million dollars to a team and receiving nothing in return just to clear the 2 million. The same may be true with Konerko especailly if we can get away with paying less than half his salary in the long run. Dealing Paully for Perez straight up would be wonderful but as others have remarked, I think its nearly impossible. Its almost certain we'd have to send a good deal of cash over in that deal. If L.A. really wanted to dump Perez, they could just non-tender him. They must want something of value in return and Paully isn't valuable unless we pay a ton of his salary.

Sadly, when you take a step back, this mess is almost entirely KW's fault. Its pretty clear that he didn't have a contingency plan last season. The hope was to win the World Series and raise the payroll to 70 or 80 million. He knew Buehrle would be arbitration elligible this season, and that Maggs would be making 14 million yet he still dealt for Koch knowing he'd end up making 5-6 million this season and he signed Konerko to a back loaded extension. If he'd just refrained from signing those two players to extensions, they'd both be arbitration elligible this season and we could save 14 million dollars just be non-tendering the two of them.

I hate to say I told you so but I've been vocal in the past about establishing methods for long term success instead of "going for it' as a number of people were in favor of last season because something can always go wrong. Its impossible to put together a team good enough to guarantee a trip to the series of even a playoff birth because there's always such a large degree of luck involved. It looks like in putting together the team so many of us thought would go far in the playoffs this season we may have lost the opportunity to field a competitive team this season.

Lip Man 1
11-12-2003, 06:12 PM
Jeremy says:

I hate to say I told you so but I've been vocal in the past about establishing methods for long term success instead of "going for it' as a number of people were in favor of last season

Yes let's wait another forty plus years to get to a series...the answer to the "problem" is obvious...either raise the payroll to the average mean salary level in MLB, 70 million or sell the franchise.

You can't have it both ways JR...expecting fan support for mediocrity and constantly rebuilding with "kids."

Lip

voodoochile
11-12-2003, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy says:

I hate to say I told you so but I've been vocal in the past about establishing methods for long term success instead of "going for it' as a number of people were in favor of last season

Yes let's wait another forty plus years to get to a series...the answer to the "problem" is obvious...either raise the payroll to the average mean salary level in MLB, 70 million or sell the franchise.

You can't have it both ways JR...expecting fan support for mediocrity and constantly rebuilding with "kids."

Lip

Beyond all that, what should the Sox have done differently last year that would have made this year better?

They didn't trade away any MLB ready players and they didn't get a bunch of players who were signed to long term expensive contracts.

How would anything in the Sox present be different if they hadn't "gone for it" last year?

hold2dibber
11-12-2003, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Sadly, when you take a step back, this mess is almost entirely KW's fault. Its pretty clear that he didn't have a contingency plan last season. The hope was to win the World Series and raise the payroll to 70 or 80 million. He knew Buehrle would be arbitration elligible this season, and that Maggs would be making 14 million yet he still dealt for Koch knowing he'd end up making 5-6 million this season and he signed Konerko to a back loaded extension. If he'd just refrained from signing those two players to extensions, they'd both be arbitration elligible this season and we could save 14 million dollars just be non-tendering the two of them.

I hate to say I told you so but I've been vocal in the past about establishing methods for long term success instead of "going for it' as a number of people were in favor of last season because something can always go wrong. Its impossible to put together a team good enough to guarantee a trip to the series of even a playoff birth because there's always such a large degree of luck involved. It looks like in putting together the team so many of us thought would go far in the playoffs this season we may have lost the opportunity to field a competitive team this season.

I agree with everything in your lengthy and insightful post - except these last 2 paragraphs, which seem to me to directly contradict one another. The point of the first of these 2 paragraphs is "if KW had not signed Koch and PK to overly rich extensions, the Sox wouldn't be in such a mess today." The point of the second paragraph is that it was foolish to "go for it" last year because of the mess we're in now. But as the first paragraph points out, the Sox could have "gone for it" last year, and not been in the mess they're in now, if only they hadn't signed PK and Koch to the deals they signed them to. KW almost had a perfect plan that allowed him to "go for it" in '03 without screwing the team for '04 - but the PK and Koch contracts mucked it up.

hold2dibber
11-12-2003, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Beyond all that, what should the Sox have done differently last year that would have made this year better?

They didn't trade away any MLB ready players and they didn't get a bunch of players who were signed to long term expensive contracts.

How would anything in the Sox present be different if they hadn't "gone for it" last year?

Exactly right, VC. What they screwed up was signing PK and Koch for big money (and also backloading Maggs' deal to include the monster salary increase this year). If Maggs was making only $10 mmin '04 and if the Sox could simply non-tender or deal Koch and PK without the impediment of their monster contracts, KW would have plenty of flexibility now.

Jjav829
11-12-2003, 06:54 PM
Sigh...it's depressing going to other teams message boards and seeing them drool over the thoughts of getting Magglio. He may have had a down year last year, but everyone else still thinks of him as a stud.

That guy is what I call a professional hitter.

Ordonez is consistent. .300 30hrs 100rbis. Set that in stone.

Ordonez is one of the best young hitters in the game.

Mags is a bona fide stud.

...and Magglio is just coming into his prime

dont tease me, this would be amazing to get this guy, it might even be better than Beltran !

Meh.

joecrede
11-12-2003, 07:15 PM
Dealing Maggs alone does not give this team the combination of talent in return and payroll flexibillity needed to rebuild.

Maggs, Konerko, Koch and Lee all have to go. I would not rule out dealing Buehrle either. There's likely to be an additional 75-100 players on top of the free-agent list already who will be non-tendered.

Teams with available cash can make a killing this winter.

jeremyb1
11-12-2003, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy says:

I hate to say I told you so but I've been vocal in the past about establishing methods for long term success instead of "going for it' as a number of people were in favor of last season

Yes let's wait another forty plus years to get to a series...the answer to the "problem" is obvious...either raise the payroll to the average mean salary level in MLB, 70 million or sell the franchise.

You can't have it both ways JR...expecting fan support for mediocrity and constantly rebuilding with "kids."

Lip

I would love for one of those scenarios to happen Lip but I'm not sure how realisitic either are and more importantly I'm looking at KW's options not JR's.

As I've stated many times before I don't see the point of arguing about what our payroll should be. Out of the hundreds of members here, no one is arguing payroll should be low, everyone wants it to be higher because that can't help but increase our chances of winning. Its a moot point. I can't see any logical reason to discuss it.

Realist
11-12-2003, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by michned
The bottom line is Uncle Jerry is just too cheap to do what it takes. I hate to say it, but until he retires/sells/becomes too old to run the team day-to-day, this team will NEVER go anywhere. If it weren't for Michael Jordan falling into his lap, JR might go down as the worst owner in the history of professional sports.

Not even close. He doesn't come within 100 miles of Bill Wirtz when it comes to the worst owner in the history of professional sports.

As for Mags, I've been saying for years that he's the second most overrated right fielder in baseball. I swear he pads his stats in blowout games. If the Sox win 15-4 he'll have 4 hits and RBIs. If the Sox lose 3-2 you can guarantee he hit into a double play in the late innings.

Granted he had more clutch hits this past season than I've ever seen him have before, but he plays a corner position and those players are a dime a dozen. You can put donkeys in left field, right field, first base and third base. What wins ball games is a solid middle. Center field, shortstop, second base and catcher are where we need the gold.

jeremyb1
11-12-2003, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Beyond all that, what should the Sox have done differently last year that would have made this year better?

They didn't trade away any MLB ready players and they didn't get a bunch of players who were signed to long term expensive contracts.

How would anything in the Sox present be different if they hadn't "gone for it" last year?

In general they would've looked towards future finances more. Konerko's deal was backloaded to free room in last season's payroll to deal for Colon and later on our deadline acquisitions, despite KW's rhetoric at the time of the deal I think Koch was dealt for to try to win last year, and Jimenez and Hummel were traded leaving us without an in house optoin at 2B.

guillen4life13
11-12-2003, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by StockdaleForVeep
Erstad is not even an offensive player, but plain offensive.

But he's a grinder!

DSpivack
11-12-2003, 08:03 PM
In a perfect world we'd trade Maggs, find some way to trade Konerko and/ or Koch without taking on much more salary in return, and sign the best RF in the game, Vlad.

In a perfect world.

Unfortunately, this world sucks, and we'll end up with Jeremy Reed as our RF, and without any worthwhile FA's. You can forget Castillo or Ponson; heck, I'd take Miguel Batista- he seems to be a very good inexpensive option.

I figure we end up with Loaiza, Buehrle, Garland, Schoeneweis and Rauch or something similar as our starters.

As for the 'pen, I figure Marte, Koch, Wunsch, Wright, and some inexpensive veteran [think this year's version of Rick White]

As for the infield, Alomar [or even Ryan Hankins; Hankins Hopes To 'Catch' Attention (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/news/cws_news.jsp?ymd=20031112&content_id=602714&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cha) ], Valentin, Crede, Konerko, and Olivo and Alomar behind the plate.

As for the outfield, Lee, Rowand, and Reed [or whatever we get for Maggs, which will probably be nothing].

I think you can pencil that team in for 80-85 victories; seemingly what we've had for years now.

Ugh.

Why can't we get an owner willing to spend some $$$?

MisterB
11-12-2003, 08:24 PM
Just some numbers here to give some perspective on the whole attendance/payroll debate.

year - Sox attendance (ML rank) - Sox payroll (ML rank) - Top ML Payroll
1991 - 2.93M (3) - $16.8M (23) - $33.6M
1992 - 2.68M (4) - $28.4M (17) - $44.3M
1993 - 2.58M (9) - $34.6M (13) - $45.7M
1994 - 1.69M (14) - $38.4M (8) - $44.7M
1995 - 1.61M (17) - $39.6M (5) - $49.8M
1996 - 1.68M (18) - $41.9M (5) - $52.2M
1997 - 1.86M (15) - $54.4M (3) - $59.1M
1998 - 1.39M (27) - $36.8M (18) - $70.4M
1999 - 1.34M (28) - $24.6M (24) - $88.1M
2000 - 1.95M (20) - $31.2M (26) - $92.9M
2001 - 1.77M (26) - $65.6M (14) - $112.3M
2002 - 1.68M (23) - $57.1M (18) - $125.9M
2003 - 1.94M (21) - $51.0M (22) - $152.7M

The median ML attendance for '03 is about 2.2 million.
The median payroll in '03 was about $69 million.

Frank the Tank
11-12-2003, 09:05 PM
Lets try to be realistic. We would all love to see Mags stay, but 14MM is just too much. How come no one is jumping on Mags for being greedy. It blows my mind that people are calling Mags underpaid. He is a multi-millionaire!! I am not a big advocate of JR, but why would anybody willingly own a baseball team to lose money? The White Sox are already operating at a loss. Two million attendance is nothing to brag about. Do you think the Yankees or Cubs would absord their huge payrolls with 2 million attendance. No Way! A $50MM-$60MM payroll for 23,000 avg. attendance is about right. How do people expect the White Sox to afford a $80MM payroll? The cubs have an extra $30MM to work with (because of their attendance). If the White Sox averaged 38,000 in payroll, I'm sure they would be willing to spend much more.
I have no problem with KW. He put one hell of a good team together last year. Sure some of his deals didn't work, but how about the ones that did. How come on one is complaining about him bringing Loiaza to the south side. If KW would have let Konerko go after the all-star season, sox fans would have had a cow. Was anybody complaining when Koch was initially signed. KW is doing a great job.

Frank the Tank
11-12-2003, 09:08 PM
I meant 38,000 in attendance

flo-B-flo
11-12-2003, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Folks perhaps I didn't make my main point clear enough and for that I apologize.

The Sox have always claimed that if the fans supported them they would take the appropriate steps to raise payroll and produce a championship team.

Williams himself was quoted last Summer as saying he hoped the Sox would win something so that "I won't have to try to piece this together every year on a 50 million dollar payroll..."

Well the fans supported the Sox last year. They drew almost two million fans. Where's the payback?

It's like I have said in the past, the Sox have never stated tangible numbers for attendence figures in order to raise the payroll and enable them to make a reasonable profit.

The reason to me is obvious. Because if they stated a tangible number (2 million, 2.3 million, 3 million) Sox fans are onery enough to show up and force them to honor their word.

The Sox have never (and will never) state such numbers because they have no intention of ever raising the payroll to even a median MLB number (which stands at 70 million right now)

This was a chance to make a reasonable raise in payroll to show the fans they are going to honor their words if the fans show up. Well obviously, according to Rogers' Sox sources, they are not.

They have had chances in the past (i.e. early 90's) to raise payroll to astounding levels when they were drawing at least 2.5 million per year...they did not.

To me their words are meaningless and I assume from history they never had any intentions of raising payroll. perhaps because of Reinsdorf's published comments against the players union.

Granted I am biased against Uncle Jerry but how anyone can defend the organization in the wake of what has transpired in the past when Sox fans have come out and supported them is
beyond my comprehension.

For people like gosox41, who take a logical business like view of Reinsdorf and his "obligations" to the Chicago sports community all I can say is that I have absolutely no problem with the White Sox making a profit. They took the risk and they deserve it.

However regardless of business, when a desire for profit turns to greed and people get hurt (i.e. lose jobs, have to pay higher prices for the same goods, am defrauded of money a la Enron, or in this case have to wait forever for a championship team) that is absolutely, positively wrong and I have no sympathy for any business like that, especially one like this organization that is to blame in many ways for the situation they are currently in.

I have no doubt the Sox are making large amounts of money at the expense of the fans, the circumstancial evidence is overwhelming, the number of published books and magazine articles stating the same are numerous and all of those divergent sources don't have a grudge against owners. From John Heylar, to Forbes Business Magazine to other authors, to links provided on this web site, to stories on Jerry Reinsdorf like in Sports Illustrated, all are stating or inferring the same thing.

With respect I don't need to listen to sources telling some of our fellow fans to "trust them," that the Sox aren't making a profit. The rational given is that 'why would these people lie?' or 'I've known them for years.' This organization has a history of lying, manipulating and arrogance almost from day one, and again with respect, unless you are an investor in the Sox, an organization known for paranoia against any outsiders... from fans, to the media to player agents, how can you be absolutely sure that these same sources are telling you the truth, regardless of how long you've known them?

"Blood is thicker then water."

I apologize for the length of this post. I was trying to articulate exactly what I've been feeling the past few days.

Lip Don't apologize for telling the truth. Especially your words about Sox fans showing up to force JR's hand. Jerry says "If you come to the game I will raise payroll".....BULSH

Lip Man 1
11-12-2003, 09:29 PM
Mister B:

Fantastic numbers, many thanks for digging them out.

It proves my point that this organization has never had any intentions of spending money on payroll if the fans come out.

The early 90's prove that with high attendence and still low payroll.

and according to your stats the Sox were about 250,000 off the aerave MLB attendence for 2003 yet their payroll wasn't even close to average.

Unbelieveable...almost as unbelieveable as Jeremy (once again) bringing up his favorite player Duh Angelo Jimenez as the answer to the Sox 2nd base problems.

Lip

Daver
11-12-2003, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Frank the Tank
I am not a big advocate of JR, but why would anybody willingly own a baseball team to lose money? The White Sox are already operating at a loss.

Have any proof that the Sox are operating at a loss?

Till you do I don't beleive a bit of it.

JR and his partners bought the team for twenty million,the franchise is now worth 250 million,so he has increased his investment tenfold,just by ownng it.

Losing money my ass.

joecrede
11-12-2003, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Mister B:

Fantastic numbers, many thanks for digging them out.

It proves my point that this organization has never had any intentions of spending money on payroll if the fans come out.

The early 90's prove that with high attendence and still low payroll.

Does 1995 through 1998 prove anything?

Frank the Tank
11-12-2003, 10:34 PM
Approximate MLB profit numbers. I'm not sure if these are for 2003, but they are pretty recent:

Major League Profits
Teams Operating Profit Official Figure
Milwaukee Brewers $18.8M $16.1M
New York Yankees 18.7 14.3
San Francisco Giants 16.8 12.7
New York Mets 14.3 -7.4
Seattle Mariners 14.1 15.5
Detroit Tigers 12.3 5.7
Pittsburgh Pirates 9.5 -1.2
Atlanta Braves 9.5 -25
Chicago Cubs 7.9 -1.8
Oakland Athletics 6.8 3.4
Colorado Rockies 6.7 -9.4
Anaheim Angels 5.7 0
San Diego Padres 5.7 -7.5
Cincinnati Reds 4.3 2.3
Houston Astros 4.1 -6.4
Minnesota Twins 3.6 .5
Baltimore Orioles 3.2 -5.3
Philadelphia Phillies 2.6 -9.1
Kansas City Royals 2.2 -.1
Florida Marlins 1.4 -9.2
Cleveland Indians -3.6 -11.4
Chicago White Sox -3.8 -9.9
Arizona Diamondbacks -3.9 -36.6
St. Louis Cardinals -5.1 -6.4
Tampa Bay Devil Rays -6.1 -10.5
Texas Rangers -6.5 -24.4
Boston Red Sox -11.4 -13.7
Toronto Blue Jays -20.6 -43.1
L.A. Dodgers -29.6 -54.5

Source: The Associated Press, Forbes

Lip Man 1
11-12-2003, 10:43 PM
Ah yes 1995 the year Uncle Jerry took out his venom on the players for being able to force the owners to acceed to federal law (as upheld by the courts)

Jack McDowell traded for three slugs to New York.
Julio Franco not, resigned allowed to go to Japan.

Chris Sabo, Dave Righetti, John Kruk, Jim Abbott, Rob Dibble all 'quality" replacements I'm sure.

LOL

Lip

Lip Man 1
11-12-2003, 10:47 PM
Frank:

It's odd that you say those figures came from Forbes Business Magazine.

I recall Bud Selig lashing out at Forbes in the recent past (I think it was before the 2002 settlement) claiming that their operating numbers showing that (I think) 26 MLB teams made money instead of the ten that the owners claimed were making money.

Rob Manfred one of his lieutenents was quoted as saying Forbes was "lying." which is a pretty strong term.

And of course as was discussed earlier in this thread there are many ways to legally shift money from one business area to another to make things seem worse then they are. Uncle Jerry with his background in tax and for the IRS I'm sure is a master at it. (He didn't become a millionair by inheriting money...)

The bottom line is still the Sox drew about 300,000 less then the MLB average in fans...is the payroll anywhere CLOSE to the MLB average? Shouldn't the Sox payroll be higher then the contraction bound Minnesota Twins? (In 2006 when the contract ends)

Lip

Frank the Tank
11-12-2003, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Frank:

It's odd that you say those figures came from Forbes Business Magazine.

I recall Bud Selig lashing out at Forbes in the recent past (I think it was before the 2002 settlement) claiming that their operating numbers showing that (I think) 26 MLB teams made money instead of the ten that the owners claimed were making money.

Rob Manfred one of his lieutenents was quoted as saying Forbes was "lying." which is a pretty strong term.

And of course as was discussed earlier in this thread there are many ways to legally shift money from one business area to another to make things seem worse then they are. Uncle Jerry with his background in tax and for the IRS I'm sure is a master at it. (He didn't become a millionair by inheriting money...)

The bottom line is still the Sox drew about 300,000 less then the MLB average in fans...is the payroll anywhere CLOSE to the MLB average? Shouldn't the Sox payroll be higher then the contraction bound Minnesota Twins? (In 2006 when the contract ends)

Lip


Here is the link I used to get the aforementioned figures:

http://www.forbes.com/home/2002/04/01/0401baseball.html

The white sox payroll is pretty close to the MLB Average, but remember the average is going to be distorted because the Yankess pay so much more than everyone else. Here is the reported payroll last year:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2003/0721/1583823.html


Team Payroll Tax

New York Yankees $180,322,403 10,764,809
New York Mets 116,253,927 0
Los Angeles 109,248,680 0
Texas 106,277,880 0
Boston 104,873,607 0

Atlanta 103,912,011 0
St. Louis 101,825,848 0
San Francisco 100,061,211 0
Philadelphia 95,338,704 0
Arizona 92,665,040 0

Seattle 92,268,063 0
Chicago Cubs 86,576,763 0
Anaheim 83,235,098 0
Houston 79,946,964 0
Colorado 78,738,492 0

Baltimore 75,502,154 0
Chicago White Sox 71,336,029 0
Minnesota 65,318,977 0
Cincinnati 65,083,196 0
Florida 63,281,152 0

Pittsburgh 62,314,723 0
Toronto 61,175,638 0
Detroit 59,006,941 0
Cleveland 58,108,824 0
San Diego 57,871,722 0

Oakland 56,596,691 0
Kansas City 48,475,322 0
Milwaukee 47,294,226 0
Montreal 45,853,889 0
Tampa Bay 31,660,602 0

Total 2,400,424,777 0

p.s. I don't think the sox paid the full brunt of the $71 MM payroll.

fuzzy_patters
11-12-2003, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by Frank the Tank
Approximate MLB profit numbers. I'm not sure if these are for 2003, but they are pretty recent:

Major League Profits
Teams Operating Profit Official Figure
Milwaukee Brewers $18.8M $16.1M
New York Yankees 18.7 14.3
San Francisco Giants 16.8 12.7
New York Mets 14.3 -7.4
Seattle Mariners 14.1 15.5
Detroit Tigers 12.3 5.7
Pittsburgh Pirates 9.5 -1.2
Atlanta Braves 9.5 -25
Chicago Cubs 7.9 -1.8
Oakland Athletics 6.8 3.4
Colorado Rockies 6.7 -9.4
Anaheim Angels 5.7 0
San Diego Padres 5.7 -7.5
Cincinnati Reds 4.3 2.3
Houston Astros 4.1 -6.4
Minnesota Twins 3.6 .5
Baltimore Orioles 3.2 -5.3
Philadelphia Phillies 2.6 -9.1
Kansas City Royals 2.2 -.1
Florida Marlins 1.4 -9.2
Cleveland Indians -3.6 -11.4
Chicago White Sox -3.8 -9.9
Arizona Diamondbacks -3.9 -36.6
St. Louis Cardinals -5.1 -6.4
Tampa Bay Devil Rays -6.1 -10.5
Texas Rangers -6.5 -24.4
Boston Red Sox -11.4 -13.7
Toronto Blue Jays -20.6 -43.1
L.A. Dodgers -29.6 -54.5

Source: The Associated Press, Forbes

It is interesting that the commisioner's family's team is the most proffitable of all the teams, yet they are also the team that is slashing their payroll to under $30 million this year.

Frank the Tank
11-12-2003, 11:22 PM
It is like they were saying on the score today. "But Selig is a piece of garbage". The selig's promised that if the new stadium was built, they would inject the profits into increasing the payroll. This is our commish? Who is he to say Pete Rose lacks integrity. Its sad to admit, but I would rather have JR as an owner than the seligs.

cornball
11-12-2003, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
I'm not surprised by this at all. It is no secret that the White Sox are pretty jammed up in terms of payroll. SO WHY IN GOD'S NAME DID THEY PICK UP VALENTIN'S OPTION FOR $5,000,000????

I can't stop getting mad over this move. I would contend that they need Tony Graffanino more than they need Valentin - and could have had him for about 1/3rd of the cost. Now - due to the fact that we just had to keep our superstar shortstop there is increased pressure throughout the rest of the roster to come in on budget - and we still have no pitching.

I swear I know 25 guys at my local tavern who could do a better job of handling this mess.


I agree whole heartedly.

rcescato
11-12-2003, 11:46 PM
This whole thing sickens my stomach. I love maggs but he is not
worth 14 mil. If they can get a good pitcher in return it would make me feel better. I am getting this feeling this whole team will be completely different when this off season has ended.
Rich

StillMissOzzie
11-13-2003, 02:36 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
This is a perfect example of people thinking they know too much about the Sox finances.

When did Ordonez sign a contract below market value? Do you think in this current economic environment, Ordonez is worth $15 mill for 4-6 years? That's what he wants. I'd be surprised if Vlad gets that.

Bob

WHile I agree that Maggs isn't going to get that kind of dough for 2005 and beyond, the Sox must have signed him to the CURRENT deal for a reason. Has he disappointed? NO! The part that irks me is that the Sox say they can't / won't pay the 2004 contract that THEY signed hime to. What has changed to make this the case?

SMO
:angry:

SoxxoS
11-13-2003, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by rcescato
This whole thing sickens my stomach. I love maggs but he is not
worth 14 mil. If they can get a good pitcher in return it would make me feel better. I am getting this feeling this whole team will be completely different when this off season has ended.Rich

That could be a good or a bad thing.

StillMissOzzie
11-13-2003, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by Chisoxfn
Paying a guy diddly crap during the few first years is part of the game. ...

Its a part of the game and players that develop into stars right out of the gate will be underpaid for a bit.

Look at what the Yanks have been paying Soriano..butkus, but thats just how it is,...

Butkus was the great Bears middle linebacker, #51. The term you're looking for here is "bupkis", (sp?), which means nothing.

SMO
:gulp:

RichH55
11-13-2003, 03:22 AM
Originally posted by StillMissOzzie
WHile I agree that Maggs isn't going to get that kind of dough for 2005 and beyond, the Sox must have signed him to the CURRENT deal for a reason. Has he disappointed? NO! The part that irks me is that the Sox say they can't / won't pay the 2004 contract that THEY signed hime to. What has changed to make this the case?

SMO
:angry:

A) THe underlying Economic Conditions of the game has changed, so something material is rather different
B) Mags could put up better numbers than he did this last year(not to knock him as he is a tremendous player)
C) You can not operate in a vaccuum

Nick@Nite
11-13-2003, 04:50 AM
Originally posted by Jjav829
Sigh...it's depressing going to other teams message boards and seeing them drool over the thoughts of getting Magglio. He may have had a down year last year, but everyone else still thinks of him as a stud.

If the organization feels $14M for Maggs is too much, then the Sox cannot stand prosperity.

Other teams (and there fans) obviously think otherwise... I find it depressing too. :angry:

Nick@Nite
11-13-2003, 04:52 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
Um, now why exactly would the Yankees give us two all-stars and a blue chip prospect for one all-star RF who makes 14mm and is a FA after this season?

Because I'm a greedy bastard :D:

RichH55
11-13-2003, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by Nick@Nite
If the organization feels $14M for Maggs is too much, then the Sox cannot stand prosperity.

Other teams (and there fans) obviously think otherwise... I find it depressing too. :angry:


Houston dealt Wagner due to monetary concerns....>Colorado is said to be shopping Helton and Preston Wilson due to Monetary Concerns

Boston(2nd highest payroll?) put Manny Rameriz(sic) on waivers

Texas has talked about dealing the best player in the game (Arod) due mainly to payroll concerns

The Diamondbacks are trying to move Schilling(even with SUBSTANCIAL deferred money) due to payroll concerns


The point has been proven (sans the Yankees) that you can not have one player take up a disporpitionate part of your payroll

That and the Economics of Baseball has changed and less money and less long term deals will be the new maxim



And one old school rule: If a player is going to be a FA at year's end, and you can't agree to a contract extension(and you know you probably won't be able to) --> You very well might have to deal him because of that

gosox41
11-13-2003, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Frank:


Rob Manfred one of his lieutenents was quoted as saying Forbes was "lying." which is a pretty strong term.

And of course as was discussed earlier in this thread there are many ways to legally shift money from one business area to another to make things seem worse then they are. Uncle Jerry with his background in tax and for the IRS I'm sure is a master at it. (He didn't become a millionair by inheriting money...)



Lip

So you're saying JR made his money be hiding it from the IRS and basically being deceitful. You say this with no proof other then theories, and some have been refuted here (ie who owns Sportsservice,, who owns the parking) yet you go on to say that Manfred accused Forbes of "lying" is strong language. Aren't you basically doing the same thing? I know you grew up on the south side and all that, but why do you support this team if you feel this way? If they get you that mad? It's gotta be more then childhood memories and tradition for you to give JR, a guy you accuse for a lot of wrong doing and conspiracy, your hard earned money.

Looks to me like JR is playing you. You hate his guts and outside of raising his payroll he can do no right in your eyes, but you continue to spend time/money on this team. It doesn't make sense. If JR treats the fans badly, and as you say owes the fans a winner out of some civic pride thing then why to you support something that you feel is screwing you over? Times change. It's nice to live off memories and so forth, but if this guy has you in such an uproar I would look to avoid situations that make you so miserable.

Just my 2 cents. It is rather obvious you can't stand JR.

Bob

gosox41
11-13-2003, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by StillMissOzzie
WHile I agree that Maggs isn't going to get that kind of dough for 2005 and beyond, the Sox must have signed him to the CURRENT deal for a reason. Has he disappointed? NO! The part that irks me is that the Sox say they can't / won't pay the 2004 contract that THEY signed hime to. What has changed to make this the case?

SMO
:angry:

What's changed is the Sox hafe made some stupid financial moves and are paying for them now. The economics of the game have changed. Obviosuly if Mags isn't traded, he'll get paid by the Sox. It's not like they're telling him they're not goign to pay him at all. Koch and Konerko make over $14 mill. next year. That's why the Sox can't afford to keep Magglio.

Bob

dougs78
11-13-2003, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Mister B:

Fantastic numbers, many thanks for digging them out.

It proves my point that this organization has never had any intentions of spending money on payroll if the fans come out.

The early 90's prove that with high attendence and still low payroll.

and according to your stats the Sox were about 250,000 off the aerave MLB attendence for 2003 yet their payroll wasn't even close to average.

Unbelieveable...almost as unbelieveable as Jeremy (once again) bringing up his favorite player Duh Angelo Jimenez as the answer to the Sox 2nd base problems.

Lip

With all due respect, I think this is one of those cases where statistics can apparently be interpreted in two different ways.

You see those numbers posted and say that Jerry will never raise payroll. Honest, I was surprised to see this is not the case. The sox were among the top 10 in attendence in the first four years at the new park. Then after the strike they raised their payroll to be in the top 5 in the league. It just takes about 3 years to reflect the change. It seems like this very much supports the assertion that "If you come, we'll build it."

Now, I"m sure we can all agree that JR and partners surely missed out on the main point when watching field of dreams if this is their perverted logic. If it takes 3 years to raise the payroll after some attendence success, then you are bound to see some peaks and valleys.

However, the unfortunate thing is that JR does actually back up his comments, its just years later. Maybe someone should have him give a timeline next time he says, "if we get the fans to come out, we'll raise the payroll."

hold2dibber
11-13-2003, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
So you're saying JR made his money be hiding it from the IRS and basically being deceitful. You say this with no proof other then theories, and some have been refuted here (ie who owns Sportsservice,, who owns the parking) yet you go on to say that Manfred accused Forbes of "lying" is strong language. Aren't you basically doing the same thing? I know you grew up on the south side and all that, but why do you support this team if you feel this way? If they get you that mad? It's gotta be more then childhood memories and tradition for you to give JR, a guy you accuse for a lot of wrong doing and conspiracy, your hard earned money.

Looks to me like JR is playing you. You hate his guts and outside of raising his payroll he can do no right in your eyes, but you continue to spend time/money on this team. It doesn't make sense. If JR treats the fans badly, and as you say owes the fans a winner out of some civic pride thing then why to you support something that you feel is screwing you over? Times change. It's nice to live off memories and so forth, but if this guy has you in such an uproar I would look to avoid situations that make you so miserable.

Just my 2 cents. It is rather obvious you can't stand JR.

Bob

Are you suggesting that people should chose their favorite team based on the owner they like the most? C'mon. The owner isn't the team. The White Sox were around for a long time before Jerry Reinsdorf and they'll be around for a long time after Jerry Reinsdorf. Hell, if hatred and distrust for Reinsdorf meant you couldn't be a Sox fan, there'd be about 3 Sox fans left.

hold2dibber
11-13-2003, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Frank the Tank
Lets try to be realistic. We would all love to see Mags stay, but 14MM is just too much. How come no one is jumping on Mags for being greedy. It blows my mind that people are calling Mags underpaid. He is a multi-millionaire!! I am not a big advocate of JR, but why would anybody willingly own a baseball team to lose money? The White Sox are already operating at a loss. Two million attendance is nothing to brag about. Do you think the Yankees or Cubs would absord their huge payrolls with 2 million attendance. No Way! A $50MM-$60MM payroll for 23,000 avg. attendance is about right. How do people expect the White Sox to afford a $80MM payroll? The cubs have an extra $30MM to work with (because of their attendance). If the White Sox averaged 38,000 in payroll, I'm sure they would be willing to spend much more.

As I've posted elsewhere, the Twins and the Sox had about the same attendance in '03 and will have about the same payroll in '04. Yet the Sox undoubtedly had greater overall revenues than the Twins in '03 (All-Star game-related revenues, higher ticket prices, much more local tv/radio revenues, etc.) You can't tell me for a second that Carl Pohlad is spending more than he's making. Yet he's spending the same as JR on payroll in '04. That leaves only 2 conclusions:

(1) JR and the partners are pocketing the difference; or
(2) The Sox have higher non-payroll expenses.

If it's no. 1, JR has that right, but he's a fool, because he's shooting himself in the foot. Raise the payroll and keep your most popular player, turn the momentum of last year (when, until the very end, the fan base was energized) and the new park renovations into something long-lasting (which is critical in light of the Cubs' success in '03).

If it's no. 2, than the Sox simply need better management. If we're spending more on player development/scouting than the Twins, well, we're certainly not seeing a better return on that investment, as the Twins have had more success than the Sox in grooming players.

dickallen15
11-13-2003, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
As I've posted elsewhere, the Twins and the Sox had about the same attendance in '03 and will have about the same payroll in '04. Yet the Sox undoubtedly had greater overall revenues than the Twins in '03 (All-Star game-related revenues, higher ticket prices, much more local tv/radio revenues, etc.) You can't tell me for a second that Carl Pohlad is spending more than he's making. Yet he's spending the same as JR on payroll in '04. That leaves only 2 conclusions:

(1) JR and the partners are pocketing the difference; or
(2) The Sox have higher non-payroll expenses.

If it's no. 1, JR has that right, but he's a fool, because he's shooting himself in the foot. Raise the payroll and keep your most popular player, turn the momentum of last year (when, until the very end, the fan base was energized) and the new park renovations into something long-lasting (which is critical in light of the Cubs' success in '03).

If it's no. 2, than the Sox simply need better management. If we're spending more on player development/scouting than the Twins, well, we're certainly not seeing a better return on that investment, as the Twins have had more success than the Sox in grooming players.


Carl Pohlad gets a big revenue sharing check. Reinsdorf does not. Pohlad is the cheapest owner in all of sports. He is a billionaire. Up until 2 years ago, his payroll was LOWER than his revenue sharing check, and that was when the revenue sharing was far less elaborate as it is now.

ondafarm
11-13-2003, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by dickallen15
Carl Pohlad gets a big revenue sharing check. Reinsdorf does not. Pohlad is the cheapest owner in all of sports. He is a billionaire. Up until 2 years ago, his payroll was LOWER than his revenue sharing check, and that was when the revenue sharing was far less elaborate as it is now.

Yes, but two factors creep in here.

a) the Sox make much more money from local TV/ radio rights because Chicago is a vastly larger media market than Minneapolis/St Paul.

b)The Twins have to pay rent on the 4H, the Sox basically pay nothing.

dickallen15
11-13-2003, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by ondafarm
Yes, but two factors creep in here.

a) the Sox make much more money from local TV/ radio rights because Chicago is a vastly larger media market than Minneapolis/St Paul.

b)The Twins have to pay rent on the 4H, the Sox basically pay nothing.

The reason for revenue sharing is to even out the playing field. The White Sox, who did pay rent last season, had to throw money into the revenue sharing pot. To say the White Sox have more money to throw at players than the Twins is inaccurate.

hold2dibber
11-13-2003, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by dickallen15
The reason for revenue sharing is to even out the playing field. The White Sox, who did pay rent last season, had to throw money into the revenue sharing pot. To say the White Sox have more money to throw at players than the Twins is inaccurate.

Unless you are an insider or otherwise are privvy to some inside info, I don't think either of us know for sure which team has more money to throw at payroll. But I suspect that the Sox have greater revenues than the Twins, even after revenue sharing is taken into account.

dickallen15
11-13-2003, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Unless you are an insider or otherwise are privvy to some inside info, I don't think either of us know for sure which team has more money to throw at payroll. But I suspect that the Sox have greater revenues than the Twins, even after revenue sharing is taken into account.


Look at all the empty seats at US Cellular, and remember when they are 3/4 full the tickets are half price. If they have more money to spend, it is a very small amount. Pohlad has more money than Reinsdorf. Pohlad is one of the richest men in the world. He can dig a lot deeper than Reinsdorf's group, but he doesn't.

jshanahanjr
11-13-2003, 10:50 AM
Magglio needs to stay on the Southside for the 2004 season and let the chips fall as they may after that. His numbers merit the money from the 99-03 seasons. Let's not right off Konerko or Koch either. They both had bad years but they will rebound this year. Lee had a breakout year but let's see if he can back it up this year. Remember when the Sox traded Jack McDowell for Lyle Mouton? The Sox pushed Jack out the door before his contract was up and the Sox went in the tank for the 95 season.

voodoochile
11-13-2003, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by jshanahanjr
Magglio needs to stay on the Southside for the 2004 season and let the chips fall as they may after that. His numbers merit the money from the 99-03 seasons. Let's not right off Konerko or Koch either. They both had bad years but they will rebound this year. Lee had a breakout year but let's see if he can back it up this year. Remember when the Sox traded Jack McDowell for Lyle Mouton? The Sox pushed Jack out the door before his contract was up and the Sox went in the tank for the 95 season.

Hey, Welcome Aboard! :D:

hold2dibber
11-13-2003, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by dickallen15
Look at all the empty seats at US Cellular, and remember when they are 3/4 full the tickets are half price. If they have more money to spend, it is a very small amount. Pohlad has more money than Reinsdorf. Pohlad is one of the richest men in the world. He can dig a lot deeper than Reinsdorf's group, but he doesn't.

I don't doubt for a second that both Pohland and JR have plenty of money (outside of team revenues) to throw in the payroll kitty, if they were so inclined. I'm not going to bash them for not doing so - that's their prerogative, but I think the Sox would be wise, at this particular point in time, to operate at a deficit in '04 if need be. They have a window of opportunity, IMHO, and therefore the possibility of a great return on such an investment seems certainly possible - plus, the risks of not doing so (i.e., of letting the team continue to bask in mediocrity) seems higher than ever, what with the Cubs' recent success.

jshanahanjr
11-13-2003, 11:25 AM
What do the Sox do with the TV/Radio revenue and millions they make in parking?

MisterB
11-13-2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by ondafarm
b)The Twins have to pay rent on the 4H, the Sox basically pay nothing.

I thought it came out during the contraction lawsuits that the Twins play in the Hump free of charge. I remember MLB offering to buy out the Twins' lease to make contraction happen and finding out there was nothing to buy out.

Nick@Nite
11-13-2003, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
Houston dealt Wagner due to monetary concerns....>Colorado is said to be shopping Helton and Preston Wilson due to Monetary Concerns

Boston(2nd highest payroll?) put Manny Ramirez(sic) on waivers

Texas has talked about dealing the best player in the game (Arod) due mainly to payroll concerns

The Diamondbacks are trying to move Schilling(even with SUBSTANTIAL deferred money) due to payroll concerns


The point has been proven (sans the Yankees) that you can not have one player take up a disproportionate part of your payroll

That and the Economics of Baseball has changed and less money and less long term deals will be the new maxim



And one old school rule: If a player is going to be a FA at year's end, and you can't agree to a contract extension(and you know you probably won't be able to) --> You very well might have to deal him because of that

$14M for one player on a team having a $60M (low end?) to $70M (high end?) payroll does not seem exorbitant to me. If JR wants to win this thing, pay Maggs and let's get on with it.

Twin Killing
11-13-2003, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy says:

I hate to say I told you so but I've been vocal in the past about establishing methods for long term success instead of "going for it' as a number of people were in favor of last season

Yes let's wait another forty plus years to get to a series...the answer to the "problem" is obvious...either raise the payroll to the average mean salary level in MLB, 70 million or sell the franchise.

You can't have it both ways JR...expecting fan support for mediocrity and constantly rebuilding with "kids."

Lip

What do you mean Lip. We are due for our token once a decade appearence in the playoffs any year now.

MAGGSFAN7
11-13-2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
Phil Rogers column today says that Magglio is on the block to be dealt. I love Magglio and I think we should pay the freaking money and keep a great ball player

Hangar18
11-13-2003, 02:54 PM
We CANNOT just Let a guy like him Walk Away....A guy that NOONE ever heard of....becomes a STAR on our team...
Let me get in the Negotiations ....

crector
11-13-2003, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
We CANNOT just Let a guy like him Walk Away....A guy that NOONE ever heard of....becomes a STAR on our team...
Let me get in the Negotiations ....


2 things:

1: It appears from the Phil Rogers piece that the real problem here is not the 14 Mil. that Ordonez is to get next year, but rather his salary demands for the years after 2004. If the Sox had the money to afford him in 2005 and after, they'd go for it, but Ordonez is being too greedy.

2: In a way, given the fact that the Sox's new manager has zero experience, wants to have Willie Harris of the .204 batting average as his leadoff hitter and who dumped on Frank at his 1st press conference and in a subsequent interview, all this is irrelevant. With or without Magglio Ordonez, the Sox are likely going nowhere as long as Ozzie is the manager.

gosox41
11-13-2003, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Are you suggesting that people should chose their favorite team based on the owner they like the most? C'mon. The owner isn't the team. The White Sox were around for a long time before Jerry Reinsdorf and they'll be around for a long time after Jerry Reinsdorf. Hell, if hatred and distrust for Reinsdorf meant you couldn't be a Sox fan, there'd be about 3 Sox fans left.

I'm just saying that if an individual we're going to spend a lot of time and effort spouting off about their hatred for something, maybe they should focus on more positive aspects of life. It's too short. JR doesn't care if you hate him because you keep giving him your money.


I'm not a smart man, but I think there is a word to describe people who continually enjoy being kicked in the nuts, complain about it, and then come back for more.

Bob

gosox41
11-13-2003, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Unless you are an insider or otherwise are privvy to some inside info, I don't think either of us know for sure which team has more money to throw at payroll. But I suspect that the Sox have greater revenues than the Twins, even after revenue sharing is taken into account.

How do you suspect that? Don't the Twins get close to $20 mill or so for revenue sharing. Didn't the Sox put in about $4 mill. That's a $24 mill. differenceright there. Any differences are probably not as big as imagined.

Bob

Jjav829
11-13-2003, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by MAGGSFAN7
I love Magglio and I think we should pay the freaking money and keep a great ball player

Welcome Aboard! :D:

StillMissOzzie
11-14-2003, 01:15 AM
Here's what KW will get back for Maggs... grinders

munchman33
11-14-2003, 01:45 AM
I love Magglio, but for that much money in this market we can probably get a starter and two relievers. And we have more outfielders waiting for a chance than pitchers in our system. It just makes sense.

hold2dibber
11-14-2003, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
How do you suspect that? Don't the Twins get close to $20 mill or so for revenue sharing. Didn't the Sox put in about $4 mill. That's a $24 mill. differenceright there. Any differences are probably not as big as imagined.

Bob

Holy crap - $20 million? If you're right, I definitely agree with you. I haven't looked into it at all, but I had it stuck in my memory banks that nobody was getting more than $6 or $7 million.

Frank the Tank
11-14-2003, 01:36 PM
Why don't the sox just hold on to Mags for now and bring up the trading issue during the season. If the White Sox suck next year, then they can trade him to a contender in the middle of the season when he would have the highest trade value?

CubKilla
11-14-2003, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Frank the Tank
Why don't the sox just hold on to Mags for now and bring up the trading issue during the season. If the White Sox suck next year, then they can trade him to a contender in the middle of the season when he would have the highest trade value?

Because the White Sox will need to free up salary to sign a SP or two before the season begins. More than likely, if Botch or Konerko is/are dealt, the deal will include the White Sox paying a portion of their owed salaries for '04.

gosox41
11-14-2003, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Holy crap - $20 million? If you're right, I definitely agree with you. I haven't looked into it at all, but I had it stuck in my memory banks that nobody was getting more than $6 or $7 million.

I've heard the $20 mill. figure thrown around. I have no way of verifying it's accuracy.

Does anyone out there know how revenue sharing is set up and how much money the Twins are getting?

Bob

Daver
11-14-2003, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
I've heard the $20 mill. figure thrown around. I have no way of verifying it's accuracy.

Does anyone out there know how revenue sharing is set up and how much money the Twins are getting?

Bob

The money from the luxury tax,as well as revenue sharing,is doled out by the commisioner as he see's fit,something the players were reluctant to agree to in the last CBA.