PDA

View Full Version : Bartolo Update


MetalliSox
11-20-2003, 02:19 PM
from rotoworld.com

The Angels and White Sox are two of the five teams in the running for Bartolo Colon, according to agent Mitch Frankel.


Never say never.

jeremyb1
11-20-2003, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by KonerkosHip
from rotoworld.com

The Angels and White Sox are two of the five teams in the running for Bartolo Colon, according to agent Mitch Frankel.


Never say never.

Hmm, according to ESPN Insider, Frankel claims the five teams in the running arethe Angels, the Phils, The Yanks, The O's, and the Red Sox.

jeremyb1
11-20-2003, 02:27 PM
Interesting. This is from the L.A. Times:

Frankel said the White Sox remain interested, although General Manager Ken Williams said after the rejection that he would proceed without Colon. The agent declined to identify the other three interested teams but said two were in the National League.

boog_alou
11-20-2003, 02:49 PM
The Phillies have also recently said that the acquisition of Colon is their #1 priority.

Initially, when I heard that Colon turned down a 3/36M deal, I thought the Sox had a legitimate shot of getting him eventually, because perhaps no one would better that deal. But, subsequently we have all found out that this deal was based on deferred money and incentives. So, basically NOT guranteed and NOT immediate 36M. I'm pretty certain that some team can and will offer him a straight deal of 3/36M.

TheRockinMT
11-20-2003, 06:18 PM
I think anyone betting against Colon returning to Chicago is in danger of losing their money. KW may be playing it cool and doesn't want to get into a bidding war, but $36M is a good sum. I also think Flash is still in the picture too.

duke of dorwood
11-20-2003, 10:16 PM
The Yankees play it cooler and the $ and the extra year will be there from them when the time comes

hose
11-21-2003, 07:16 AM
Bartolo update: Colon is up to 295 :D:

Tree
11-21-2003, 07:54 AM
Only 295??? I figured he would be more than that!

boog_alou
11-21-2003, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by TheRockinMT
I think anyone betting against Colon returning to Chicago is in danger of losing their money. KW may be playing it cool and doesn't want to get into a bidding war, but $36M is a good sum. I also think Flash is still in the picture too.

As I said, the Sox deal wasn't even 36M in real, guaranteed money. It was full of incentives and deferred money. Someone will beat that deal, count on it.

But, do you really want Colon? With a payroll ceiling of $60 million (if that), re-signing Colon would mean the Sox would have to trade Ordonez and possibly Lee as well.

The bottom line is that with the sox budgetary constraints, Colon and Gordon are completely out of the question. Bye bye.

jabrch
11-21-2003, 09:58 AM
the present value of the Colon deal. I wish we knew the exact terms of the deferrals. Right now, with the cost of capital so low, the value of the deferrals should be fairly nominal. Unless the deferrals are so far off into the future that it is as if Bartolo isn't even getting the $. Bottom line, I think he wanted to see what the market will bear. I can't see anyone giving him much more than 13mm in today's dollars. Certainly not with Pettite also a FA. Pettite should get more than Bartolo.

Iwritecode
11-21-2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by boog_alou
As I said, the Sox deal wasn't even 36M in real, guaranteed money. It was full of incentives and deferred money. Someone will beat that deal, count on it.

Maybe somebody can confirm this but isn't this guy:

:jaime

the reason JR doesn't give out long-term contracts to pitchers anymore? Or has he just always been that way?

Lip Man 1
11-21-2003, 11:54 AM
Floyd Bannister and Jamie Navarro are the only Sox pitchers that I can remember to ever get any long term deals from Uncle Jerry.

Bannister did very well in five years with the Sox, Navarro was a complete bust but look at who the GM's were at the time for each signing.

Uncle Jerry has always been opposed to signing long term contracts for pitchers, it's his cheap nature. He feels the risk of injury is to great.

Bannister was signed when Uncle Jerry was still new to baseball back when he actually wanted to win more then break the players union. Ironically a few days before the Bannister signing was announced Uncle Jerry spouted off to the press about how signing free agents had to stop, but he did the deal anyway.

When Bannister signed with the Sox beating out 18 other teams including the Yankees, Steinbrenner went nuts, calling Reinsdorf and Einhorn the "katenjammer kids," of baseball and expressing regret that he voted against Ed Debartolo for Sox owner.

Lip

Tekijawa
11-21-2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

Bannister was signed when Uncle Jerry was still new to baseball back when he actually wanted to win more then break the players union. Ironically a few days before the Bannister signing was announced Uncle Jerry spouted off to the press about how signing free agents had to stop, but he did the deal anyway.

When Bannister signed with the Sox beating out 18 other teams including the Yankees, Steinbrenner went nuts, calling Reinsdorf and Einhorn the "katenjammer kids," of baseball and expressing regret that he voted against Ed Debartolo for Sox owner.

Lip


Didn't he do the same with Albert Belle? Talk about how FA's were way over priced and then he wen't and made him the highest paid baseball player ever?

Maybe that's what he's doing now? Telling everyone that the payroll will be 60 Million when it will actually be 160 Million!

dickallen15
11-21-2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Floyd Bannister and Jamie Navarro are the only Sox pitchers that I can remember to ever get any long term deals from Uncle Jerry.

Bannister did very well in five years with the Sox, Navarro was a complete bust but look at who the GM's were at the time for each signing.

Uncle Jerry has always been opposed to signing long term contracts for pitchers, it's his cheap nature. He feels the risk of injury is to great.

Bannister was signed when Uncle Jerry was still new to baseball back when he actually wanted to win more then break the players union. Ironically a few days before the Bannister signing was announced Uncle Jerry spouted off to the press about how signing free agents had to stop, but he did the deal anyway.

When Bannister signed with the Sox beating out 18 other teams including the Yankees, Steinbrenner went nuts, calling Reinsdorf and Einhorn the "katenjammer kids," of baseball and expressing regret that he voted against Ed Debartolo for Sox owner.

Lip


All in all, Reinsdorf has been correct in his belief that pitchers should get no more than 3 years. Alvarez, Fernandez and McDowell all broke down within 2 years of leaving the White Sox. It was speculated at ESPN last month that the majority of teams have now adopted a 3 year max for a pitcher policy. With very few exceptions, teams signing pitchers to 5 year or longer contracts have regretted it. Its not cheap nature, its just being wise. Call him cheap if you want, but when he is right as he has been here, back off. By the way, Steinbrenner now counts Reinsdorf and Einhorn as a couple of his best friends in baseball.

Iwritecode
11-21-2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
All in all, Reinsdorf has been correct in his belief that pitchers should get no more than 3 years. Alvarez, Fernandez and McDowell all broke down within 2 years of leaving the White Sox. It was speculated at ESPN last month that the majority of teams have now adopted a 3 year max for a pitcher policy. With very few exceptions, teams signing pitchers to 5 year or longer contracts have regretted it. Its not cheap nature, its just being wise. Call him cheap if you want, but when he is right as he has been here, back off. By the way, Steinbrenner now counts Reinsdorf and Einhorn as a couple of his best friends in baseball.

Just remember that there was a guy named Roger Clemens that they passed up to sign Navarro instead.

I don't remember the exact quote but something about Clemens having nothing left.

I few Cy Young and World Series rings later...

dickallen15
11-21-2003, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Just remember that there was a guy named Roger Clemens that they passed up to sign Navarro instead.

I don't remember the exact quote but something about Clemens having nothing left.

I few Cy Young and World Series rings later...

That was one exception. What about Kevin Brown, Mike Hampton, Denny Neagle, Jack McDowell, Wilson Alvarez, Alex Fernandez, Kevin Appier, Daren Driefort, Chan Ho Park, the list goes on and on. The White Sox weren't the only team that missed on Clemens.

BeerHandle
11-21-2003, 12:39 PM
I thought Bart said he does not want to play in NYC.

Lip Man 1
11-21-2003, 04:30 PM
The direct quote from then Sox GM Ron Schueler (he of the untradable future hall of fame Sox minor league pitchers) was "Roger Clemens is over the hill."

It came after it was repoted in the papers that Clemens' agents the Hendricks Brothers of Houston had contacted the Sox after the Belle signing to see if they would be interested in him.

and Dick the trouble with your comment is that it only takes one team to disregard that philosophy (and there are more then one signing pitchers to long term deals today) to screw the Sox doesn't it?

If you want to win, you take the gamble, you pay the price...sometime it blows up in your face...tough. Uncle Jerry wants to win but his way, which is unfortunate because:

A. He hasn't won doing it his way

and B. Because ALL the other clubs aren't following his example...which means if he says 'nothing beyond three years' but five or six other teams are willing to go four or five, who do you think that pitcher is going to wind up with?

Finally Beer, I can give you oh 13-15 million reasons a year (and NOT in deferred money or incentives) while Bartolo could be made to change his mind on NYC.

Lip

dickallen15
11-21-2003, 04:43 PM
You say Schueler said he was over the hill ,so it couldn't be Reinsdorf's "cheapness" was the reason he wasn't signed. It can't be both. I am no fan of Schueler, that moron is finding out right now how good he had it with the White Sox.Now he wants to be a scout for the Mets. Reinsdorf's baseball people were against signing the Rocket, so he wasn't sought after. That is not Reinsdorf's fault, nor is it being cheap. If its bad scouting that said don't sign him, it certainly wasn't cheapness. After Belle and Navarro signed , the White Sox had the 4th highest payroll in all of baseball. As far as having to sign pitchers to 5 year contracts, I'm sure glad Reinsdorf didn't give any of the guys I mentioned above the big money, it would have been a total waste.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-21-2003, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
You say Schueler said he was over the hill ,so it couldn't be Reinsdorf's "cheapness" was the reason he wasn't signed. It can't be both. I am no fan of Schueler, that moron is finding out right now how good he had it with the White Sox.Now he wants to be a scout for the Mets. Reinsdorf's baseball people were against signing the Rocket, so he wasn't sought after. That is not Reinsdorf's fault, nor is it being cheap. If its bad scouting that said don't sign him, it certainly wasn't cheapness. After Belle and Navarro signed , the White Sox had the 4th highest payroll in all of baseball. As far as having to sign pitchers to 5 year contracts, I'm sure glad Reinsdorf didn't give any of the guys I mentioned above the big money, it would have been a total waste.

I'm not sure what you're saying. In your opinion who is ultimately responsible for the last 23 seasons of the Sox winning 3 total playoff games, the last one in 1993? Reinsdorf? Schueler? Sox baseball people? Who?

For the record, Reinsdorf threw in the towel on that 1997 team you are lauding him for assembling. Robin Ventura missed over 3 months of the season and had just returned from the D.L. when the White Flag Trade occurred.

Reinsdorf's commitment to winning in 1996-97 wasn't worth a warm bucket of spit. This ought to be even more apparent now that we're on the verge of starting the whole rebuilding process all over again.

:angry:

dickallen15
11-21-2003, 08:24 PM
I'm arguing the point that on one hand the GM says Clemens is over the hill. On the other hand you don't sign him because you are cheap. It can't be both ways.The White Sox certainly weren't cheap that offseason, and even though they spent all that money, the fans still stayed away from the park. People call the mid season trade a White Flag. If the race was so close, why didn't the fans come to the park, the team had the fourth highest payroll in baseball? How come Bill Veeck gets a pass when it comes to ripping Sox owners. He never won a World Series, and was a heck of a lot cheaper than Reinsdorf. Veeck made a lot of money owning the White Sox the second time around and only sold the team when his depreciation allowance ran out.Veeck was so cheap, he made Schueler a pitching coach because he was under contract and couldn't pitch anymore. If Reinsdorf even thought of that, he would be skewered here, Veeck just gets a giggle. Look where the White Sox attendance ranks league wide and look where their payroll is. Their payroll is always higher than their attendance, so this cheap thing is just getting old. Jerry Reinsdorf is easily the best owner the White Sox ever had. He isn't going to sell the team any time soon, so just live with it, and hope some of the things that are going on with the ballpark and in the neighborhood will attract the casual fan, and allow the White Sox to increase their payroll without bankrupting the franchise.

duke of dorwood
11-21-2003, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I'm not sure what you're saying. In your opinion who is ultimately responsible for the last 23 seasons of the Sox winning 3 total playoff games, the last one in 1993? Reinsdorf? Schueler? Sox baseball people? Who?

For the record, Reinsdorf threw in the towel on that 1997 team you are lauding him for assembling. Robin Ventura missed over 3 months of the season and had just returned from the D.L. when the White Flag Trade occurred.

Reinsdorf's commitment to winning in 1996-97 wasn't worth a warm bucket of spit. This ought to be even more apparent now that we're on the verge of starting the whole rebuilding process all over again.

:angry: The rebuilding is upon us-the team and the park.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-21-2003, 08:52 PM
Claiming Jerry Reinsdorf is the best owner in White Sox history is truly damning him with faint praise.

Attendance is mostly determined by season ticket sales and it takes longer than six months to rebuild the base of season ticketholders, yet that is how long Reinsdorf waited before pulling the plug on his big 1996-97 spending spree.

Bill Veeck is routinely skewered around here, most recently the past few days when several older posters noted what a great ballplayer the recently-deceased Earl Battey was and what a chump Veeck was for trading him.

In a league comprised of 30 major league franchises, Chicago ranks #3, yet somehow the excuses have kept flowing 22+ years now about why we're a small market team. The Sox are small market because that is the way ownership runs the franchise.

If Reinsdorf just can't make it all work he should sell. His ownership group will pocket a profit not less than $180 million on their puny $20 million investment. I'm not buying the sincerity of one single crocodile tear they might shed. None of us should.

longshot7
11-21-2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Claiming Jerry Reinsdorf is the best owner in White Sox history is truly damning him with faint praise.

Attendance is mostly determined by season ticket sales and it takes longer than six months to rebuild the base of season ticketholders, yet that is how long Reinsdorf waited before pulling the plug on his big 1996-97 spending spree.

Bill Veeck is routinely skewered around here, most recently the past few days when several older posters noted what a great ballplayer the recently-deceased Earl Battey was and what a chump Veeck was for trading him.

In a league comprised of 30 major league franchises, Chicago ranks #3, yet somehow the excuses have kept flowing 22+ years now about why we're a small market team. The Sox are small market because that is the way ownership runs the franchise.

If Reinsdorf just can't make it all work he should sell. His ownership group will pocket a profit not less than $180 million on their puny $20 million investment. I'm not buying the sincerity of one single crocodile tear they might shed. None of us should.

here, here!!

WinningUgly!
11-21-2003, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by BeerHandle
I thought Bart said he does not want to play in NYC.

Jason Giambi was singing the same song a few years ago...

TraderTim
11-21-2003, 09:46 PM
PHG:

Why should they sell? Because you say so?

They ponied up the cash for an investment--a business--and now they own it. They get to make the decisions.

Just because I don't like the way the Chicago Mercantile Exchange sets their fees doesn't mean they have to sell...or ATT...or Smokey Bones.

You can rant and shout and wave your hands in the air, but they own the Sox. It's a business. You're a hard-core fan, no doubt. Me, too. Frankly, that's irrelevant to what the owners of the Sox will or won't do about their investment.

Sorry, but these same old tired demands by folks just get old. The world don't work that way, boys and girls. This is America. You can make a buck or you can go broke. That's your right in America as a businessman.

Forkit!

WinningUgly!
11-21-2003, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by TraderTim
PHG:

Why should they sell? Because you say so?

They ponied up the cash for an investment--a business--and now they own it. They get to make the decisions.

Just because I don't like the way the Chicago Mercantile Exchange sets their fees doesn't mean they have to sell...or ATT...or Smokey Bones.

You can rant and shout and wave your hands in the air, but they own the Sox. It's a business. You're a hard-core fan, no doubt. Me, too. Frankly, that's irrelevant to what the owners of the Sox will or won't do about their investment.

Sorry, but these same old tired demands by folks just get old. The world don't work that way, boys and girls. This is America. You can make a buck or you can go broke. That's your right in America as a businessman.

Forkit!


You're right.. this is America, where owners like Jerry Reinsdorf are also free to lie about actually giving a damn about winning. He's free to make as many ridiculous statements as he wants about how he'd be willing to trade in all 6 of his NBA championships for one World Series. He's free to hold on to all the money he made during those Bulls glory years & not putting it toward making the White Sox payroll competitive. He's also free to laugh at you for defending him.

SoxRulecubsdrool
11-21-2003, 10:28 PM
:gulp:
I say we all put in a couple of million each and buy the team back from JR. I'll write a check.
:gulp:

Wait, I have to run out for more beer!

joecrede
11-21-2003, 10:31 PM
It's a fact that the Sox have one of the lowest payrolls in baseball. The reality though is, that doesn't negatively impact their chances to win a World Series all that much because the other teams that comprise the AL Central also have low payrolls.

Over 162 games a $50-60M descrepancy in payrolls is likely to be the difference in a team winning and losing a division. That same payroll difference is greatly negated in best-of-five and best-of-seven series.

jordan23ventura
11-21-2003, 11:03 PM
<<Why should they sell? Because you say so?>>

Why not??

<<They ponied up the cash for an investment--a business--and now they own it. They get to make the decisions.>>

Oh, I see. The fans can't make the decisions.

<<You can rant and shout and wave your hands in the air, but they own the Sox. It's a business. >>

Isn't ranting and shouting and raving all what a message board is about? Releasing frustrations? Having the slightest sliver of hope that something positive may happen after you speak your mind, even if the odds are that no one "important" will hear it or if someone "important" does they won't care?

<<Frankly, that's irrelevant to what the owners of the Sox will or won't do about their investment.>>

What about my investment? I know JR probably doesn't care because he knows no matter how disappointed I am I will still be at the ballpark every year. I am stating the obvious, just like you.

<<Sorry, but these same old tired demands by folks just get old. The world don't work that way, boys and girls.>>

Just about everything on this board and any other for that matter is the same old rehashed ideas and complaints and scenarios and the like. Trades, non-tenders, etc. aren't going on right now. We have to talk about something don't we??

<<This is America. You can make a buck or you can go broke. That's your right in America as a businessman.>>

Damn right!! Gimme a beer, a tv, a flag, and a pocket-p***y!!

basilesox
11-22-2003, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by dickallen15
I'm arguing the point that on one hand the GM says Clemens is over the hill. On the other hand you don't sign him because you are cheap. It can't be both ways.The White Sox certainly weren't cheap that offseason, and even though they spent all that money, the fans still stayed away from the park. People call the mid season trade a White Flag. If the race was so close, why didn't the fans come to the park, the team had the fourth highest payroll in baseball? How come Bill Veeck gets a pass when it comes to ripping Sox owners. He never won a World Series, and was a heck of a lot cheaper than Reinsdorf. Veeck made a lot of money owning the White Sox the second time around and only sold the team when his depreciation allowance ran out.Veeck was so cheap, he made Schueler a pitching coach because he was under contract and couldn't pitch anymore. If Reinsdorf even thought of that, he would be skewered here, Veeck just gets a giggle. Look where the White Sox attendance ranks league wide and look where their payroll is. Their payroll is always higher than their attendance, so this cheap thing is just getting old. Jerry Reinsdorf is easily the best owner the White Sox ever had. He isn't going to sell the team any time soon, so just live with it, and hope some of the things that are going on with the ballpark and in the neighborhood will attract the casual fan, and allow the White Sox to increase their payroll without bankrupting the franchise.

Whatever you say Jerry! Oh Im sorry I mean Dick

basilesox
11-22-2003, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Floyd Bannister and Jamie Navarro are the only Sox pitchers that I can remember to ever get any long term deals from Uncle Jerry.

Bannister did very well in five years with the Sox, Navarro was a complete bust but look at who the GM's were at the time for each signing.

Uncle Jerry has always been opposed to signing long term contracts for pitchers, it's his cheap nature. He feels the risk of injury is to great.

Bannister was signed when Uncle Jerry was still new to baseball back when he actually wanted to win more then break the players union. Ironically a few days before the Bannister signing was announced Uncle Jerry spouted off to the press about how signing free agents had to stop, but he did the deal anyway.

When Bannister signed with the Sox beating out 18 other teams including the Yankees, Steinbrenner went nuts, calling Reinsdorf and Einhorn the "katenjammer kids," of baseball and expressing regret that he voted against Ed Debartolo for Sox owner.

Lip

Debartolo, Any relationship with the Debartolo that owns the 49ers...Is it the same guy (I cant think of his first name)..If so what is the story here, I would have loved to have Debartolo as an owner for the sox

cornball
11-22-2003, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by basilesox
Debartolo, Any relationship with the Debartolo that owns the 49ers...Is it the same guy (I cant think of his first name)..If so what is the story here, I would have loved to have Debartolo as an owner for the sox

Same guy or it may have been his son, I dont remember.

If I recall, it looked like a done deal at one time DeBartolo was going to be the owner of the Sox. In fact, I believe it was reported his money was behind the Sox signing LeFlore at the time. Who stole like 70 some bases the year before. The deal was nixed because of absentee ownership...that is if I remember right.

This is the family that owns the 49ers and several shopping malls in Ohio. They also donated millions to Notre Dame and have a building on campus bearing their name. If only he could have been.........this is how i remember, someone correct me if I am wrong.

cornball
11-22-2003, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by TraderTim
PHG:

Why should they sell? Because you say so?

They ponied up the cash for an investment--a business--and now they own it. They get to make the decisions.

Just because I don't like the way the Chicago Mercantile Exchange sets their fees doesn't mean they have to sell...or ATT...or Smokey Bones.

You can rant and shout and wave your hands in the air, but they own the Sox. It's a business. You're a hard-core fan, no doubt. Me, too. Frankly, that's irrelevant to what the owners of the Sox will or won't do about their investment.

Sorry, but these same old tired demands by folks just get old. The world don't work that way, boys and girls. This is America. You can make a buck or you can go broke. That's your right in America as a businessman.

Forkit!

This is not a typical business. Yes they own the team, but they have have to cater to their customers, like every other business.

This ownership has alienated their fans for 23 years. Through tv, threating to move and the list goes on and on and on.

The bottom line is winning solves all problems. Every major sports team in this town, with the Cubs as an exception, draws well when they win. The Bears had a hard time drawing late in the Wanny years, the Hawks still cant sell out, the Bulls dont now (although JR screwed season tix holders at the end of Jordans run) and the Sox would too if they showed they wanted to win.

JR blames the fans for not coming to the park not supporting his "investment". This is a select group, only 30 like it in the world and not a business you can just start up. To be successful in this sport/business will cost you money and if he is not willing to do so he should either get out of the business or accept the fate.

Located in one of the largest metro areas in the country, with very favorable tv/radio contracts, lease agreement and millions of equity on his investment should give him the luxury to spend money. Besides the fact that it has been almost 90 years since they did win.

TraderTim
11-22-2003, 01:44 PM
Winning DOES NOT solve all problems. The Marlins were sold after their World Series appearance for a rather spectactular loss...or didn't you know that?

If you plan to be a long-term owner, you have to be a good bottom-line businessman. It is a difficult tightrope between paying enough to field a contending team and making enough money to justify a respectable return on a $200-$350 mill investment [depending on what you think the Sox sale value would be]. And remember...ROI is based on current value, not initial investment, so don't even start with throwing out what the Sox were purchased for.

As I have stated here a few times, if you are interested in watching another investment community owner "own" a team, watch Boston. John Henry will be interesting to watch, as he is a notorious "bottom line" guy in his businesses.

Forkit!

cornball
11-22-2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by TraderTim
Winning DOES NOT solve all problems. The Marlins were sold after their World Series appearance for a rather spectactular loss...or didn't you know that?

If you plan to be a long-term owner, you have to be a good bottom-line businessman. It is a difficult tightrope between paying enough to field a contending team and making enough money to justify a respectable return on a $200-$350 mill investment [depending on what you think the Sox sale value would be]. And remember...ROI is based on current value, not initial investment, so don't even start with throwing out what the Sox were purchased for.

As I have stated here a few times, if you are interested in watching another investment community owner "own" a team, watch Boston. John Henry will be interesting to watch, as he is a notorious "bottom line" guy in his businesses.

Forkit!

I don't care if JR has a good ROI, I would like to see the team I grew up watching field a winning team. If he doesn't plan on doing so and with a 60 million dollar budget, I don't think he does, then I wish he would leave.

Winning would solve most of the problems. An increase at the gate, in advertising dollars, in merchandising, in tv ratings and so on.

I was here before JR and will be when he is gone.

Do you think a 12 year old boy, who loves baseball, cares what the salary's of the player's are today? They want to see their favorite players and their favorite teams win.

The Sox have always had a good increase in attendance after winning divisions and I could care less what happens in Florida.

If your interested in ROI, maybe Tampa would be a great place, JR thought so at one time too.

TraderTim
11-22-2003, 05:36 PM
Cornball:

You miss the point.

And I sense you think I am pro-management and not pro-fan, somehow.

My ONLY point is that 99 percent of the people here only think one way: "I" want this and so it has to be done. Period.

Most fans think all owners should spend like Steinbrenner.

But there is some business acumen behind keeping a franchise alive, year after year.

I know folks here don't care about an investor's ROI. That wasn't my point. But in this world, where even mediocre players are being paid millions of dollars a year, it takes a big pile of money to field a team. It's so easy to say the owner should simply buy a World Series and then all the fans will come.

What if you pay the price and get knocked out in the playoffs? And then can't meet financial obligations [see Veeck and more recently, the Marlins and D-Backs]. There is a huge price to pay if you mortgage your future and lose on the gamble. You just might lose the team. No owner with a whit of sense will risk that.

My point was simply: It's easy to spend JR's money. It's easy to wave the magic wand when it ain't your wallet.

Someone asked if the Prez of Intel would buy the Sox...He's only worth $400 mill...It ain't enough, frankly. He'd need a lot more than the price of the club.

And by the way, I have a son and daughter [5 and 3] and they go to games with me and my wife. I've been going to Sox games for 40 years now. It's not that I care about JR's ROI...It's that I have a different perspective than 99 percent of the posters here. There are far worse owners than JR [Go ahead, line your stones up, boys...] I know what it's like to run a large corporation and have to worry about day to day cash flowas well as investor relationships. And of course, I want to go to see the Sox win the World Series. All the problems are not JR's fault. That's all I am saying.

Forkit!

joepoe
11-22-2003, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by TraderTim
Cornball:

...
My ONLY point is that 99 percent of the people here only think one way: "I" want this and so it has to be done. Period.

Most fans think all owners should spend like Steinbrenner.

But there is some business acumen behind keeping a franchise alive, year after year.

I know folks here don't care about an investor's ROI. That wasn't my point. But in this world, where even mediocre players are being paid millions of dollars a year, it takes a big pile of money to field a team. It's so easy to say the owner should simply buy a World Series and then all the fans will come.

...My point was simply: It's easy to spend JR's money. It's easy to wave the magic wand when it ain't your wallet.
...
Forkit!

I think ownership and fans are in a symbiotic relationship whether they think they are or not. Fans want to support the team and expect a good product for their entertainment dollar. Owners need to provide entertainment value (not DRUDGERY, Chairman) to keep the fans interested. I think most people understand the need for a budget, but most do not cotton to being taken advantage of or belittled, as the Chairman has done in the past. Remember how he crowed and gloated and told us off after the 2000 clinch?

Palehose13
11-22-2003, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by cornball
Same guy or it may have been his son, I dont remember.

If I recall, it looked like a done deal at one time DeBartolo was going to be the owner of the Sox.

If my dad is right, it is the same guy. When the 49er's had their monopoly in the 80's I remember my dad telling me that the 49er's owner was almost the owner of the Sox, but something happened (don't remember what) and Reinsdorf bought instead.

I think seeing the Niners win so much made my dad wonder what could have been...

cornball
11-22-2003, 06:36 PM
Tim

I didnt mean anything by it, really. My point is many of the issues were created by JR.

In this biz, which is unlike yours or any other, it is protected from anti-trust laws. It is a "country club" with limited competition.

In this game you need to spend money to be competitive. As a business man, you will know Chicago is unlike most markets in the country.

We are a large market team in a small market division there for the taking and he is reluctant. Plus the cross town team now wants to win, which means in many cases corporations would rather spend season tix on them. I know my company dropped Sox season tixs a few years ago.

Daver
11-22-2003, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Palehose13
If my dad is right, it is the same guy. When the 49er's had their monopoly in the 80's I remember my dad telling me that the 49er's owner was almost the owner of the Sox, but something happened (don't remember what) and Reinsdorf bought instead.

I think seeing the Niners win so much made my dad wonder what could have been...

Eddie DeBartolo Sr. tried to buy the White Sox,and was rejected by the other owners for his ties to offshore casinos and other gambling interests.

Eddie DeBartolo Jr. bought the 49er's,spent lavishly to win for a few years,and was tossed out of the NFL for concealing his ties to offshore casinos and other gambling interests.

Palehose13
11-22-2003, 08:00 PM
Thanks for clearing that up, Daver. I wonder if Sr. would have spent like Jr.

gosox41
11-23-2003, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by joepoe
I think ownership and fans are in a symbiotic relationship whether they think they are or not. Fans want to support the team and expect a good product for their entertainment dollar. Owners need to provide entertainment value (not DRUDGERY, Chairman) to keep the fans interested. I think most people understand the need for a budget, but most do not cotton to being taken advantage of or belittled, as the Chairman has done in the past. Remember how he crowed and gloated and told us off after the 2000 clinch?

You can say that about any relationship between ownership and its customers. There's nothing special here. Customers expect good value for their dollar and don't want to waste their money on a product and find out it isn't as good as advertised.


Welcome to Business 101.


Bob

TraderTim
11-23-2003, 12:58 PM
An interesting point, not brought up to cloud the issue, but merely as something that kept flitting about my head as I was at several dinners with my much younger nieces and nephews [90 percent band-wagon jumping Cubs fans this year]...

IF the Cub had opened the wallet a bit more and added some pop to the lineup--reliable pop--and say, spent an extra $10 mill, they might have easily won the whole ball of wax.

I am very surprised at the lack of angst by Cub fans at the Tribune company, which obviously has more resources to spend than JR and friends, yet also missed a "golden" opportunity.

I guess the difference is, Sox fans can speak no good of their ownership and Cub fans...well, they just don't bother to think, except to wonder how good it all will feel next year, when they are sure the baseball Gods will finally smile on them...

Forkit!

PaleHoseGeorge
11-23-2003, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by TraderTim
....I guess the difference is, Sox fans can speak no good of their ownership and Cub fans...well, they just don't bother to think, except to wonder how good it all will feel next year, when they are sure the baseball Gods will finally smile on them...

Pfft... you make it sound like either of these teams has done anything to earn the respect and admiration of their respective fans. We're talking about the two-worst baseball franchises in the ENTIRE NATION. Each of these franchises has been owned by the same insufferable outfits the past 23 seasons, doing nothing but cry poor while 90's-vintage expansion franchises win championships.

What a joke of an argument this is...

koch44
11-23-2003, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by SoxRulecubsdrool

I say we all put in a couple of million each and buy the team back from JR. I'll write a check.


We can have the payments deferred also! :)

JDP
11-23-2003, 10:11 PM
How much would the team sell for? If I liquified everything, perhaps I could put up 10%.