PDA

View Full Version : Colon's Agent Speaks


Lip Man 1
11-28-2003, 12:02 AM
ESPN's Sportscenter aired a story tonight quoting Bartolo Colon's agent directly as saying that his client is "very interested" in pitching for the Yankees this season.

Two points:

One is the obvious that Colon's supposed desire to stay away from the Yankees was a myth.

Two is that Kenny Williams stated the Sox had withdrawn their offer to Colon when he filed for free agency and were "moving forward." Some Sox fans didn't believe that comment. Perhaps they will now. I would assume that the Yanks if they are interested in him, will be paying him in "real money" up front...not deferred money or money based on incentives.

As was stated in the past by many, the Yankees were and always are the "wild card" when trying to figure out where free agents are going. Boston's reported strong interest in Schilling raises the stakes and the Yankees will react in force (although I felt that Colon always was a target of theirs even before the Schilling situation)

At the risk of infuriating my critics this off season has not shaped up well so far for the Sox. Eventually they'll do something but I think it will be in reaction to other events instead of proactively getting what they want and need.

Lip

Blueprint1
11-28-2003, 12:13 AM
Well, there really is no team that can spend like the New York Yankees. If Colon ends up in New York there really was nothing that the Sox could do about his leaving. What the Sox have to do is acknowledge that they now have a hole at the top of their rotation and work on filling that hole up with someone who is currently in the major leagues. Lets hope that a young Sox pitcher can have a year like Mark did in 2001 it seems like the Sox have missed on alot of prospects lately.

munchman33
11-28-2003, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by Blueprint1
Lets hope that a young Sox pitcher can have a year like Mark did in 2001 it seems like the Sox have missed on alot of prospects lately.

Indeed. Let's not give up on Neal Cotts after a couple rough outings. He's very similar to Mark and there are a lot of scouts who are very high on him.

jeremyb1
11-28-2003, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
ESPN's Sportscenter aired a story tonight quoting Bartolo Colon's agent directly as saying that his client is "very interested" in pitching for the Yankees this season.

Two points:

One is the obvious that Colon's supposed desire to stay away from the Yankees was a myth.

Two is that Kenny Williams stated the Sox had withdrawn their offer to Colon when he filed for free agency and were "moving forward." Some Sox fans didn't believe that comment. Perhaps they will now. I would assume that the Yanks if they are interested in him, will be paying him in "real money" up front...not deferred money or money based on incentives.

As was stated in the past by many, the Yankees were and always are the "wild card" when trying to figure out where free agents are going. Boston's reported strong interest in Schilling raises the stakes and the Yankees will react in force (although I felt that Colon always was a target of theirs even before the Schilling situation)

At the risk of infuriating my critics this off season has not shaped up well so far for the Sox. Eventually they'll do something but I think it will be in reaction to other events instead of proactively getting what they want and need.

That's certainly possible but if I'm Colon's agent and the Red Sox, his ideal suiter are going to go with Schilling, while other clubs haven't offered more money than we have, you better believe I'm going to tell anyone who will listen my client is interested in playing for the Yanks - the only team that appears to be left with the ability to top our offer.

Chisox_cali
11-28-2003, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
ESPN's Sportscenter aired a story tonight quoting Bartolo Colon's agent directly as saying that his client is "very interested" in pitching for the Yankees this season.

Two points:

One is the obvious that Colon's supposed desire to stay away from the Yankees was a myth.

Two is that Kenny Williams stated the Sox had withdrawn their offer to Colon when he filed for free agency and were "moving forward." Some Sox fans didn't believe that comment. Perhaps they will now. I would assume that the Yanks if they are interested in him, will be paying him in "real money" up front...not deferred money or money based on incentives.

As was stated in the past by many, the Yankees were and always are the "wild card" when trying to figure out where free agents are going. Boston's reported strong interest in Schilling raises the stakes and the Yankees will react in force (although I felt that Colon always was a target of theirs even before the Schilling situation)

At the risk of infuriating my critics this off season has not shaped up well so far for the Sox. Eventually they'll do something but I think it will be in reaction to other events instead of proactively getting what they want and need.

Lip

Wooooo! Wooooo! "All About The Lip Man Pessimism Train! The 2004 Tour Starts Early This Year!!!"

In Reaction to other events? Every team in baseball's moves are a reaction to what every other team has done.

As far as you're concerned the other thing that the Sox need to do this off-season is kill Reinsdorf, who apparently has done something to you personally for you to get this mad at a SPORTS OWNER

You are really starting to sound like a broken record this off-season, even more than in the past. "Raise Payroll" "Get rid of Reinsdorf" You know you as a fan you can't do a damn thing to change it. Nobody can, so it's really pointless to complain about something you can't change. If any of those things are ever gonna happen it will be a retroactive decison made by the people in charge. Yes fans are an important part of sports and entertainment in general, but the fans will never get what they want all of the time because every fan wants something different, and owners etc. will do there best to please as many people as they can, no matter how bad you beleive the opposite.

To quote Chris Rock "You act like it's some Dynasty ****, like 'They're trying to destory me!'"

hose
11-28-2003, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
ESPN's Sportscenter aired a story tonight quoting Bartolo Colon's agent directly as saying that his client is "very interested" in pitching for the Yankees this season.

Lip



Lip quoting an agent is just a bit more credible than what Al Sharpton has to say.

Before the winter is over I think the Sox will have made plenty of moves.

Hangar18
11-28-2003, 07:27 AM
I think Lip was right..... were offering Deferred, hidden in paper bags payments, as opposed to offering a Real Contract.

TornLabrum
11-28-2003, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
ESPN's Sportscenter aired a story tonight quoting Bartolo Colon's agent directly as saying that his client is "very interested" in pitching for the Yankees this season.

Which just proves that money talks a whole lot louder than anything. Several years ago Robin Ventura indicated that he would never play in NY because he hated it. He ended up playing for both clubs there. I just shows to go ya....

hold2dibber
11-28-2003, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by Chisox_cali
[I]Yes fans are an important part of sports and entertainment in general, but the fans will never get what they want all of the time because every fan wants something different, and owners etc. will do there best to please as many people as they can, no atter how bad you beleive the opposite.

If you think Jerry Reinsdorf does his best to please as many people as he can, you haven't been paying attention the last 20 years.

TornLabrum
11-28-2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
If you think Jerry Reinsdorf does his best to please as many people as he can, you haven't been paying attention the last 20 years.

The only people Jerry Reinsdorf has ever tried to please is his partners in the ownership group.

surfdudes
11-28-2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
At the risk of infuriating my critics this off season has not shaped up well so far for the Sox. Eventually they'll do something but I think it will be in reaction to other events instead of proactively getting what they want and need.

Lip


Originally posted by jeremyb1


That's certainly possible but if I'm Colon's agent and the Red Sox, his ideal suiter are going to go with Schilling, while other clubs haven't offered more money than we have, you better believe I'm going to tell anyone who will listen my client is interested in playing for the Yanks - the only team that appears to be left with the ability to top our offer.


Originally posted by TornLabrum


Which just proves that money talks a whole lot louder than anything. Several years ago Robin Ventura indicated that he would never play in NY because he hated it. He ended up playing for both clubs there. I just shows to go ya....


Beauteeeeeeeeeeeful!

Which shows..............

A- We have a well founded sceptisism of JR .

B- During the hot stove season rumors, opinions, and conjecture

run rampant.

C- Agents say anything, and can not be trusted.

To which I say....


1- Most of the action will take place in December.

2- Many, Many deals fly under the rader. Ie.. Schilling and D. Lee,
which I saw nothing about until announcement of said deal.

3- We have a well founded sceptisism of JR. One day he goes out
and gets Colon, the next day he's trading his entire pitching staff for a bag of salted peanuts and a pack of smokes.

I'll wait and hold out hope that we make a deal for a # 2 or #3 starter before I start on these guys...............

anewman35
11-28-2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
The only people Jerry Reinsdorf has ever tried to please is his partners in the ownership group.

Right, because JR doesn't care at all about winning and making the fans happy! Seriously guys, come off it. He's not a perfect owner, but it's crazy to think he doesn't want to win. You can argue that he doesn't spend enough, or that he has the wrong people, but if you don't think he really wants to make Sox fans happy, you're just not paying attention.

Lip Man 1
11-28-2003, 10:42 AM
Cali:

If you think I'm the instigator of the 2004 pessimissism train you haven't been reading the other threads then.

Stop seeing only what you want to see.

Besides the odds are the pessimists are going to be right again in 2004. After all these are the White Sox, but maybe they'll get lucky for once, that seems to be the only way they can get to a World Series.


Lip

TornLabrum
11-28-2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
Right, because JR doesn't care at all about winning and making the fans happy! Seriously guys, come off it. He's not a perfect owner, but it's crazy to think he doesn't want to win. You can argue that he doesn't spend enough, or that he has the wrong people, but if you don't think he really wants to make Sox fans happy, you're just not paying attention.

Yeah, you're right. I'd forgotten about all those World Series championships he's brought us in the past 23 years. I should be ecstatic, but I'm just another whining and complaining fan. My deepest apologies.

anewman35
11-28-2003, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Yeah, you're right. I'd forgotten about all those World Series championships he's brought us in the past 23 years. I should be ecstatic, but I'm just another whining and complaining fan. My deepest apologies.

There's a big difference between not caring and not succeeding. Like I said, maybe it's he's not spending enough, maybe he's just an idiot and hires the wrong people, I'm not getting into that argument now. What I'm saying is that JR WANTS the Sox to win, and WANTS Sox fans to be happy. It doesn't usually happen, and that's probably to some extent his fault, but he's not some evil genius hating all of us.

Doesn't everybody seem to love Bill Veeck? We won a whole lot of World Series championships under him!

hold2dibber
11-28-2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
Right, because JR doesn't care at all about winning and making the fans happy! Seriously guys, come off it. He's not a perfect owner, but it's crazy to think he doesn't want to win. You can argue that he doesn't spend enough, or that he has the wrong people, but if you don't think he really wants to make Sox fans happy, you're just not paying attention.

I agree that to some extent he wants to win and he wants Sox fans to be happy. But I think, based upon his actions during the last 23 years, that those two items fall pretty far down his priority list. Yes, he wants to win - but only if he does it HIS way (i.e., only spend what you're bringing in, extreme loyalty to those who are loyal to you, no long term deals for pitchers, etc.). Yes, he wants Sox fans to be happy - but that certainly did stop him from firing fan favorite Jimmy Piersall, taking the Sox off of free t.v., forcing fan favorite Harry Caray to the Dark, er, I mean North, Side, helping to facilitate the '94 strike with the Sox in first place, etc., etc. Clearly, the "happiness" of the fans is not exactly item no. 1 on his agenda.

TornLabrum
11-28-2003, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
There's a big difference between not caring and not succeeding. Like I said, maybe it's he's not spending enough, maybe he's just an idiot and hires the wrong people, I'm not getting into that argument now. What I'm saying is that JR WANTS the Sox to win, and WANTS Sox fans to be happy. It doesn't usually happen, and that's probably to some extent his fault, but he's not some evil genius hating all of us.

Doesn't everybody seem to love Bill Veeck? We won a whole lot of World Series championships under him!

Yes, and Jerry has showed us how much he cares about winning by hiring his last three managers (Gene Lamont, Terry Bevington, and Jerry Manuel) with no major league managerial experience. He has showed us how much he cares about winning by firing Roland Hemond and replacing him with his last four GMs (Hawk Harrelson, Larry Himes, Ron Schueler, and Kenny Williams) with no previous experience running a major league ball club.

He's showed us how much he cared about the fans by ignoring fans' criticisms of the ball park he built for a decade before making any changes in it. He's cared so much about the fans that he's stated publicly that he wants to win more than we do.

And of course he showed how much he really cares about the fans in 1994 when he led the Hawks against the players union and helped force a strike when his team was in first place. He showed how much he cared about fans three years later with the White Flag Trade. And he showed how much he thinks of the fans' intelligence when he justified the trade by noting that the gutted team "only played .500 ball" after the trade, as if that had anything to do with what they might have done with the original players.

Even before that trade, he showed how much he cared about the fans by dealing Harold Baines only days after Robin Ventura had returned to the lineup, killing any chance of the fans seeing what would have been the strongest middle of the lineup in team history.

Again, I apologize for even questioning The Chairman's desire to win!

RKMeibalane
11-28-2003, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Yeah, you're right. I'd forgotten about all those World Series championships he's brought us in the past 23 years. I should be ecstatic, but I'm just another whining and complaining fan. My deepest apologies.

LMAO! You tell 'em, Hal!

RKMeibalane
11-28-2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Yes, and Jerry has showed us how much he cares about winning by hiring his last three managers (Gene Lamont, Terry Bevington, and Jerry Manuel) with no major league managerial experience. He has showed us how much he cares about winning by firing Roland Hemond and replacing him with his last four GMs (Hawk Harrelson, Larry Himes, Ron Schueler, and Kenny Williams) with no previous experience running a major league ball club.

He's showed us how much he cared about the fans by ignoring fans' criticisms of the ball park he built for a decade before making any changes in it. He's cared so much about the fans that he's stated publicly that he wants to win more than we do.

And of course he showed how much he really cares about the fans in 1994 when he led the Hawks against the players union and helped force a strike when his team was in first place. He showed how much he cared about fans three years later with the White Flag Trade. And he showed how much he thinks of the fans' intelligence when he justified the trade by noting that the gutted team "only played .500 ball" after the trade, as if that had anything to do with what they might have done with the original players.

Even before that trade, he showed how much he cared about the fans by dealing Harold Baines only days after Robin Ventura had returned to the lineup, killing any chance of the fans seeing what would have been the strongest middle of the lineup in team history.

Again, I apologize for even questioning The Chairman's desire to win!

LOL! Great stuff!

RKMeibalane
11-28-2003, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
forcing fan favorite Harry Caray to the Dark, er, I mean North, Side

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/daver/darth.jpg

"Do not insult the Dark Side of the Force."

Brian26
11-28-2003, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
He has showed us how much he cares about winning by firing Roland Hemond and replacing him with his last four GMs (Hawk Harrelson, Larry Himes, Ron Schueler, and Kenny Williams) with no previous experience running a major league ball club.

Hold the phone. I'll agree with you on Hawk and KW not having a lot of experience in the GM position. However, Larry Himes completely rebuilt the California Angels farm system and made them a perrenial playoff contender in the late 70's and early 80's. His credentials were pretty damn good. Ron Schueler was the GM in Oakland before he came to the Sox in '91, wasn't he? Remember the story about the Sox trying to lure Bob Welch and his 20+ victories to the south side for the '91 season since Schu was coming over, too? Schu was around for the three straight World Series appearances by the A's. Schu and Himes had nice resumes. Arguments could be made about Hawk and KW, but not about Schu and Himes.

Brian26
11-28-2003, 01:41 PM
Hernandez, Alvarez keep options open

Henry Schulman, OF THE EXAMINER STAFF Wednesday, August 6, 1997

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


Giant newcomers haven't ruled out returning to Sox

CHICAGO - After the White Sox traded Roberto Hernandez, Wilson Alvarez and Danny Darwin to the Giants last week, Hernandez called Chicago owner Jerry Reinsdorf and general manager Ron Schueler liars. Alvarez ripped the same pair for dismantling a team that was still in the division race, and Schueler responded by calling both pitchers overpaid whiners.

So it was somewhat surprising when Hernandez and Alvarez both said Tuesday that once they become free agents this winter, they wouldn't close the door on signing free-agent contracts with the White Sox and returning to Chicago.

"That's still up in the air," Hernandez said. "I know my wife is excited about that rumor. So are my kids."

Said Alvarez, "If they offer a contract, why not?"

In truth, the chances of either pitcher returning to the South Side in 1998 are minimal considering they continue to rip White Sox management. Furthermore, a rebuilding team like Chicago isn't likely to dole out the multiyear, big-money contracts Hernandez and Alvarez will demand.

The Giants aren't exactly thrilled about throwing millions of bucks at pitchers either, but if the Chicago Three continue to pitch like they have on this road trip, fans may descend on Candlestick with pitchforks and torches demanding that general manager Brian Sabean bring them back.

Darwin was the last of the three to throw for the Giants, and he played a big part in Monday night's 8-2 rout of Chicago at Wrigley Field. He limited the Cubs to two runs on three hits in six innings, setting the stage for a seven-run Giants outburst in the last three innings. The big hit was Bill Mueller's three-run, two-out triple in the eighth inning, which busted open a 2-2 game.

Darwin barely rated a reaction from the 32,259 fans, which either speaks to their oblivion to all things White Sox or Darwin's relative standing among the three departed pitchers.

But the media reaction before the game was a different story. The Giants arranged for all three to meet the Chicago press corps in unison in the tiny visiting dugout. About 50 scribes, camera operators and radio types stood on the warning track with their pens, microphones and lenses at the ready waiting for the trio to emerge from the clubhouse.

The mob looked like the townsfolk of Punxsutawney, Pa., waiting breathlessly to see if that stupid rodent would see its shadow.

The three emerged and for more than a half-hour answered questions such as, and this is not made up, "How will it feel to pitch in front of a big crowd in Chicago?"

It was during the press conference that Hernandez raised the idea of returning to the White Sox.

"We've been here six years," he said. "It's something my family is familiar with. All that's been said is just more rumors. Jerry and Schu, it's in their hands. I can't worry about that right now because I'm a Giant. Stranger things have happened, but I've got to focus on what we need to do to get to the second level that we didn't get to with the White Sox."

What about re-signing with the Giants?

"I can't say I'm going to be here or not," Hernandez said. "Right now they have to worry about Mr. (Rod) Beck also."

With Beck and Hernandez both free agents, Sabean will have some interesting decisions to make this winter. So will Schueler. But with Alvarez expected to demand a five-year, $35 million deal and Hernandez something not much cheaper, it's doubtful the Sox will come a-knockin'.

Darwin didn't address that issue Tuesday. He was too busy stifling the Cubs' offense, allowing a scratch run in the fourth inning and a Shawon Dunston homer in the fifth. He walked none and struck out five, which surprised him.

"I usually don't strike out that many in a week," the 41-year-old wonder joked.

"My job was to go out and give us a chance to win. I made one mistake to Dunston. I hung a slider. But I was happy with the way I threw the ball. I hadn't pitched in eight or nine days. As the game went on I felt a little stronger."

Good thing, too. Rumor has it there were some White Sox scouts in the stands watching him.<

TornLabrum
11-28-2003, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Hold the phone. I'll agree with you on Hawk and KW not having a lot of experience in the GM position. However, Larry Himes completely rebuilt the California Angels farm system and made them a perrenial playoff contender in the late 70's and early 80's. His credentials were pretty damn good. Ron Schueler was the GM in Oakland before he came to the Sox in '91, wasn't he? Remember the story about the Sox trying to lure Bob Welch and his 20+ victories to the south side for the '91 season since Schu was coming over, too? Schu was around for the three straight World Series appearances by the A's. Schu and Himes had nice resumes. Arguments could be made about Hawk and KW, but not about Schu and Himes.

Himes was hated by the players. Himes was fired despite having chosen Frank Thomas, Robin Ventura, Jack McDowell, and Alex Fernandez as first round draft picks. Himes, according to Reinsdorf was unable to get us to Point C.

Schueler was great at renting right fielders and telling us about how he was going to go after every big-name free agent who became available during his tenure.

How many World Series did we make it to under the watch of either of these guys?

Brian26
11-28-2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Himes was hated by the players. Himes was fired despite having chosen Frank Thomas, Robin Ventura, Jack McDowell, and Alex Fernandez as first round draft picks. Himes, according to Reinsdorf was unable to get us to Point C.

Schueler was great at renting right fielders and telling us about how he was going to go after every big-name free agent who became available during his tenure.

How many World Series did we make it to under the watch of either of these guys?

That's not the question. The question is how much experience did these two guys have before they got here. You stated they were unproven and had no previous experience. Both Himes (in the Angels organization) and Schueler (in the A's organization) had great resumes and excellent experience coming into their jobs. That's what I disagreed with you on.

If you want to debate how well each did in their respective positions, that's another debate altogether. Schueler's team was 2 wins away from the World Series in 1993 and could have possibly won the World Series in 1994 if not for the Strike.

Gumshoe
11-28-2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
There's a big difference between not caring and not succeeding. Like I said, maybe it's he's not spending enough, maybe he's just an idiot and hires the wrong people, I'm not getting into that argument now. What I'm saying is that JR WANTS the Sox to win, and WANTS Sox fans to be happy. It doesn't usually happen, and that's probably to some extent his fault, but he's not some evil genius hating all of us.

Doesn't everybody seem to love Bill Veeck? We won a whole lot of World Series championships under him!

What one must understand is that to us, TRUE SOX FANS, caring more about money than winning, and doing this for 20+ years shows us that he doesn't really care about winning. Is that so hard to understand? How can you say that someone wants to win when they never really try hard to win at all? This is like saying I wanna play like Eric Clapton, but that I'm too lazy to pick up or practice the guitar to do what it takes to get to that point. I'm sure everyone would love to WIN --- but we wanna see actions that really SHOW that someone is trying. The Sox clearly have OTHER prorities, my friends.

Gumshoe

TornLabrum
11-28-2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
That's not the question. The question is how much experience did these two guys have before they got here. You stated they were unproven and had no previous experience. Both Himes (in the Angels organization) and Schueler (in the A's organization) had great resumes and excellent experience coming into their jobs. That's what I disagreed with you on.

If you want to debate how well each did in their respective positions, that's another debate altogether. Schueler's team was 2 wins away from the World Series in 1993 and could have possibly won the World Series in 1994 if not for the Strike.

No, here is what I originally said:

He has showed us how much he cares about winning by firing Roland Hemond and replacing him with his last four GMs (Hawk Harrelson, Larry Himes, Ron Schueler, and Kenny Williams) with no previous experience running a major league ball club.

Neither of them had any experience running a major league club.

You said:

However, Larry Himes completely rebuilt the California Angels farm system and made them a perrenial playoff contender in the late 70's and early 80's. His credentials were pretty damn good. Ron Schueler was the GM in Oakland before he came to the Sox in '91, wasn't he?

In response to the first part, it turned out Himes's experience didn't help him in dealing with the players' end of things. He was, as I mentioned, hated by the players for such such things as having a dress code. As Kenny Williams has shown, running (or even revamping) a farm system is not the same as overseeing a ball club.

Ron Schueler's position before he was named GM of the Sox was Special Assistant to Sandy Alderson (the Oakland GM at the time). So, no, he had no experience running a team either.

The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating. And the proof of the competence of all four of Reinsdorf's hires as GM is that NONE of them have brought the Sox a World Championship. In fact, none of them have gotten us beyond the first round of playoffs.

Gumshoe
11-28-2003, 06:52 PM
torn labrum's points are valid ... because they are the flat out bottom line. Again, this is what the essence of being a sox fan is, guys .. it's realizing that its owners have done chicken crap things for its entire existence and all have been detrimental to the team, especially when the team was about to WIN! (JR during 94 and one could say Charles Comiskey in 19 if he believes in the Eight men Out theory; or Veeck trading the team away after the '59 team won the pennant) ...

I've said it before, I'll say it again:

Let us judge the Sox in RESULTS, the only thing that matters. Quit making excuses and letting guys like KW off the hook. Who cares if people try hard? It's not good enough. You have to have brains, you have to have class, you have to have a developed organization. Or, at least you have to realize a division is ripe for the taking and push a little more into your investment for the Fans, and see what happens come playoff time. Oh, but this is Reinie, and there is one thing far more important than winning for him

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Argh, to be a White Sox fan and know that incompetents run your team.

Chisox_cali
11-28-2003, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
If you think Jerry Reinsdorf does his best to please as many people as he can, you haven't been paying attention the last 20 years.

I haven't even been alive for 20 years.

Also, you seem to keep coming back to the team, so he must be doing something right.

Brian26
11-28-2003, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating. And the proof of the competence of all four of Reinsdorf's hires as GM is that NONE of them have brought the Sox a World Championship. In fact, none of them have gotten us beyond the first round of playoffs.

First of all, during the Himes and Schueler regimes, there was only one round of playoffs before the World Series. That statement is misleading. The 1990-1994 teams were competitive. The Sox had the 2nd best record in baseball during this time period, behind the Atlanta Braves. The '93 team was only 2 wins from the Series. The '94 team may have gone all the way. The 1990 team (built by Himes) was magical, and should have made the playoffs (unfortunately we were stuck in the wrong division that year). The '91 and '92 teams were very exciting, and we were in first place in '91 up until August. The '92 season would have been more of a success without the injuries that year.

No, neither guy got us a World Title, but neither has any other GM since 1917.

Chisox_cali
11-28-2003, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Cali:

If you think I'm the instigator of the 2004 pessimissism train you haven't been reading the other threads then.

Stop seeing only what you want to see.

Besides the odds are the pessimists are going to be right again in 2004. After all these are the White Sox, but maybe they'll get lucky for once, that seems to be the only way they can get to a World Series.


Lip

I've been here for a while and it's not hard to figure out that you are the #1 Pessimist here, and I'm not the only person who knows that. 99.999999999% of your posts include a jab at the Sox and their ownership or some other form of negativety. Any thread that has pessimism in it rest asured you'll have at least one post in it.

TornLabrum
11-28-2003, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
First of all, during the Himes and Schueler regimes, there was only one round of playoffs before the World Series. That statement is misleading. The 1990-1994 teams were competitive. The Sox had the 2nd best record in baseball during this time period, behind the Atlanta Braves. The '93 team was only 2 wins from the Series. The '94 team may have gone all the way. The 1990 team (built by Himes) was magical, and should have made the playoffs (unfortunately we were stuck in the wrong division that year). The '91 and '92 teams were very exciting, and we were in first place in '91 up until August. The '92 season would have been more of a success without the injuries that year.

No, neither guy got us a World Title, but neither has any other GM since 1917.

The last I knew, the whole purpose was to get your team to the World Series and win. No one has done that since 1917.

You know how much glory having the second best record in baseball from 1990-94 gets you? You know how many people will look back and talk about what a great team that was?

The only playoffs the Sox made during the Himes/Schueler years were 1993 and 2000. True, there was only one round of playoffs in 1993, and I assumed we all knew that, so I don't think I was being misleading in the least. And true, that team was two wins from making it to the World Series, but as my late father used to say, "And if the dog hadn't stopped to [relieve himself], he'd have caught a rabbit."

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

We weren't even close in 2003.

All I see in the post quoted above is a lot of "woulda, coulda, shoulda." That's all I ever hear from the Reinsdorf appologists.

Lip Man 1
11-28-2003, 07:42 PM
Chisox cali says:

I haven't even been alive for 20 years.

Cali you'r right, I'm a moron. I've followed baseball closely for 43 years and don't know a thing.

You're 19 or 19 1/2 and your a computerized, statistical self proclaimed genius.

I've deliberately stopped posting more provocative things simply because the folks in your generation are getting to me. Yet I continue to see threads started ripping the owner, this organization and the mediocre record it has produced over the last 23 years. Yet I'm to blame for that.

Makes sense to me. Simple solution, put me on your ignore list and my pessimism won't piss you off.

When I was growing up my late dad always told me children should be seem and not heard. Obviously your dad never told you that, or if he did you ignored the advice.

Lip

Chisox_cali
11-28-2003, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Chisox cali says:

I haven't even been alive for 20 years.

Cali you'r right, I'm a moron. I've followed baseball closely for 43 years and don't know a thing.

You're 19 or 19 1/2 and your a computerized, statistical self proclaimed genius.

I've deliberately stopped posting more provocative things simply because the folks in your generation are getting to me. Yet I continue to see threads started ripping the owner, this organization and the mediocre record it has produced over the last 23 years. Yet I'm to blame for that.

Makes sense to me. Simple solution, put me on your ignore list and my pessimism won't piss you off.


19 3/4 if you want to be specific, and as far as the "statistical self proclaimed genius." I think you're confused, that's what you call kermit. I don't know a damn thing about stats nor do I claim to be a genious, I'm actually not that smart, and I've said that before.

It's alright I don't have to ignore you, actually it's becoming rare that I respond to your pessimism, it's only when I really have something to say that I post something about it. A lot of the time I just blow it off.

When I was growing up my late dad always told me children should be seem and not heard. Obviously your dad never told you that, or if he did you ignored the advice.

Ooooooooo, BURN!!!! Anyways, my Dad never told me that because I was encouraged to speak my mind. Obviously it was a different time when you we're a kid. And just to stop you from coming up with another burn, I NEVER got in trouble in school by mouthing off, I NEVER got into a fight by "Talking ****" as the kids say.

Blueprint1
11-28-2003, 08:31 PM
What is going on in here?

CLR01
11-28-2003, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Blueprint1
What is going on in here?


A whole lot of nothing it appears.

TornLabrum
11-28-2003, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by CLR01
A whole lot of nothing it appears.

Too bad Seinfeld isn't still in production. We'd probably have the makings of a great script here.

gosox41
11-29-2003, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by Blueprint1
What is going on in here?

Just more JR bashing by fans who feel so strongly against him that they continue to support him financially.

If one is going to judge JR based on how the Sox perform, then shouldn't Sox fans be judged based on how they act? There is a lot of strong negativity here, but for some reason a lot of them still shell out their hard earned money to support this team. The fact they spend a lot of time writing about their hatred of JR says a mouthful.

Everyone as a right to voice their opinion, it's just that JR is judging the actions of loyal fans by the fact that they keep coming out to support him even though he probably knows they hate them. It's called being taken advantage of. Actions speak louder then words..

Bob

TornLabrum
11-29-2003, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
Just more JR bashing by fans who feel so strongly against him that they continue to support him financially.

If one is going to judge JR based on how the Sox perform, then shouldn't Sox fans be judged based on how they act? There is a lot of strong negativity here, but for some reason a lot of them still shell out their hard earned money to support this team. The fact they spend a lot of time writing about their hatred of JR says a mouthful.

Everyone as a right to voice their opinion, it's just that JR is judging the actions of loyal fans by the fact that they keep coming out to support him even though he probably knows they hate them. It's called being taken advantage of. Actions speak louder then words..

Bob

Seems to me that the number of tickets sold has dipped by an average of about a million since before the 1993-94 strike. So it looks as if a whole lot of fans are not happy with The Chairman or the way he runs his ball club.

Now tell me, how many of you who are supporting him go out to The Cell and actually cheer for Reinsdorf?

Uh-huh...didn't think so.

There is a difference between the team that is put out on the field for the "entertainment" of the fans (and in the past three years, that word has been used quite loosely) and the people who are putting that team on the field. Seems that some people can't distinguish between the two.

BTW, if you paid a hundred bucks to see a Broadway production and when you got to the theater you found out that it was being put on by a high school drama club, would you gripe about the producers doing that?

voodoochile
11-29-2003, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Seems to me that the number of tickets sold has dipped by an average of about a million since before the 1993-94 strike. So it looks as if a whole lot of fans are not happy with The Chairman or the way he runs his ball club.

Now tell me, how many of you who are supporting him go out to The Cell and actually cheer for Reinsdorf?

Uh-huh...didn't think so.

I addition the drop off after the WFT was very dramatic. They didn't recover until 2000 and then had lower attendance in the following two years before rebounding this past season slightly.

Now, what was the common denominator those seasons with higher attendance?

Oh that's right... The Sox paid more than lip service to winning...

gosox41
11-29-2003, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Seems to me that the number of tickets sold has dipped by an average of about a million since before the 1993-94 strike. So it looks as if a whole lot of fans are not happy with The Chairman or the way he runs his ball club.

Now tell me, how many of you who are supporting him go out to The Cell and actually cheer for Reinsdorf?

Uh-huh...didn't think so.

There is a difference between the team that is put out on the field for the "entertainment" of the fans (and in the past three years, that word has been used quite loosely) and the people who are putting that team on the field. Seems that some people can't distinguish between the two.

BTW, if you paid a hundred bucks to see a Broadway production and when you got to the theater you found out that it was being put on by a high school drama club, would you gripe about the producers doing that?

I was speaking about the fans that post at this web site and complain about JR and still support him. Give credit to those who got fed up enough with JR that there action was just to shun the team completely. It could be debated whether these fans are "real" fans, but at least they took action about a situation that upset them.

And Hal there is not much difference between the team on the field and the managment. It's a good rationalization to justify supporting the team, but the only difference is the guys on the field have some ability to play the game. Managment controls who is put on the field, and acocrding to the JR haters all you're watching is some assets taht fit into a great mathematical equation that JR controls to maximize profits.

For those who believe JR is cunning, ruthless, etc, and that he doesn't want to win then you're just buying into the conspiracy when you give JR your hard earned money.

As for the Broadway play example. If I brought tickets expecting to see a Broadway play and then saw it was a HS drama club doing it so the producers could make more money, I would never support the theater, producers, etc. again. I'd find other Broadway plays put on where I can spend money. Or I'd start going to HS/college plays where they would be cheaper and my expectations would be met.

But the last thing I'd do is go see a play, complain about the producers for cheaping out and then go see another play put on by the same producers. That's my whole point. Enough Sox fans here hate JR with a passion, they've been lied to, cheated, and taken advantage of by him yet they continue to do so.

I guess I take a more unemotional approach then most to things. If I feel I'm getting screwed out of money or being taken advantage of I don't do business with that person/company. The last thing I'd do is continously voice my opinion about how I'm being taken advantage of and then get back in line to be taken advantage of again.

Bob

TornLabrum
11-29-2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
I was speaking about the fans that post at this web site and complain about JR and still support him. Give credit to those who got fed up enough with JR that there action was just to shun the team completely. It could be debated whether these fans are "real" fans, but at least they took action about a situation that upset them.

And Hal there is not much difference between the team on the field and the managment. It's a good rationalization to justify supporting the team, but the only difference is the guys on the field have some ability to play the game. Managment controls who is put on the field, and acocrding to the JR haters all you're watching is some assets taht fit into a great mathematical equation that JR controls to maximize profits.

For those who believe JR is cunning, ruthless, etc, and that he doesn't want to win then you're just buying into the conspiracy when you give JR your hard earned money.

As for the Broadway play example. If I brought tickets expecting to see a Broadway play and then saw it was a HS drama club doing it so the producers could make more money, I would never support the theater, producers, etc. again. I'd find other Broadway plays put on where I can spend money. Or I'd start going to HS/college plays where they would be cheaper and my expectations would be met.

But the last thing I'd do is go see a play, complain about the producers for cheaping out and then go see another play put on by the same producers. That's my whole point. Enough Sox fans here hate JR with a passion, they've been lied to, cheated, and taken advantage of by him yet they continue to do so.

I guess I take a more unemotional approach then most to things. If I feel I'm getting screwed out of money or being taken advantage of I don't do business with that person/company. The last thing I'd do is continously voice my opinion about how I'm being taken advantage of and then get back in line to be taken advantage of again.

Bob

There is one point where my Broadway play analogy breaks down. That is the fact that you don't generally have more than a financial, and perhaps an artistic, interest in the play. On the other hand, the term "fan" is actually short for fanatic. Fans have an emotional involvement with their team.

My emotional involvment with the Sox began 48 years ago when I was a 5-year-old kid. They were my number 1 team. I maintained a secondary rooting interest in the Cubs until about a decade ago, and then I made a crucial mistake.

I made the decision that Reinsdorf really wanted to win more than the Tribune Co. did. So I dumped the Cubs only to find out that Reinsdorf was no better than the Tribune Co., and in fact was more of a cheapskate.

I've seen the Sox run by Dorothy and Chuck Comiskey, Bill Veeck, Art Allyn, John Allyn, Bill Veeck again, and Jerry Reinsdorf. That's an average of six years per regime in the 48 years I've been following the Sox. Ownership comes and ownership goes. The game is what I thrive on.

If I didn't love baseball to what is probably an irrational extent, I probably would quit going to Sox games. I do love going to Kane County and Joliet. But I'm not a young parent with kids to entertain. I like the quality of ball played in the major leagues.

I'd just like to see the team I've got 48 years of my life invested in play it at a level that would at least humor me into thinking that they might have a chance to actually win something every once in a while.

The Sox have won nothing since two years before my parents were born. One of those parents is already dead, and the other is 84 years old. My grandfather at least got to see them win two World Series by the time he was 28 years old. The next two generations of the family have seen nothing.

The Sox owners for the last 23 years have been the group led by Jerry Reinsdorf. He's the owner. The buck stops with him.

Brian26
11-29-2003, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
I'd just like to see the team I've got 48 years of my life invested in play it at a level that would at least humor me into thinking that they might have a chance to actually win something every once in a while.

This is the kind of crap that gets old. Are you telling me that in 2003, 2000, 1994, 1993, 1990, and 1983 the Sox didn't at the very least "humor" you? You've got to be joking me. In every one of those seasons, I thought the Sox had a chance. In 1993, being 2 wins from the World Series, I was humored. I understand the emotion behind your argument, and I agree that the Sox haven't won it all since 1917, but you're wrong to gloss over the seasons they were successful.

Gumshoe
11-29-2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
This is the kind of crap that gets old. Are you telling me that in 2003, 2000, 1994, 1993, 1990, and 1983 the Sox didn't at the very least "humor" you? You've got to be joking me. In every one of those seasons, I thought the Sox had a chance. In 1993, being 2 wins from the World Series, I was humored. I understand the emotion behind your argument, and I agree that the Sox haven't won it all since 1917, but you're wrong to gloss over the seasons they were successful.

I understand this point, but you can't really say a team has a great chance to win unless they put a string of capable teams/seasons together. Yes, that happened in 1994, but who stopped it all? How convenient.

We go with new players in 2000 to not even coming close the next few years due to managerial changes in the organization. 2003? Another case supported by a loser, cheapskate mentality. We are prepared to take certain measures, but aren't ready to make all the RIGHT ones to win (see florida marlins win world series after firing manager, aka what should have been done by the White Sox).

Reinie plays a flash in the pan game. He sits and HOPES that a team will do well. HE HOPES that a guy without experience like KW will be able to do things. He doesn't actively pursue WINNING. It's blatantly obvious.

Gumshoe

TornLabrum
11-29-2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
This is the kind of crap that gets old. Are you telling me that in 2003, 2000, 1994, 1993, 1990, and 1983 the Sox didn't at the very least "humor" you? You've got to be joking me. In every one of those seasons, I thought the Sox had a chance. In 1993, being 2 wins from the World Series, I was humored. I understand the emotion behind your argument, and I agree that the Sox haven't won it all since 1917, but you're wrong to gloss over the seasons they were successful.

Did you really think that after blowing off April-June, we really had a chance in the 2003 season? Did you really think that when we couldn't be the Detroit freakin' Tigers? No, I was not amused in 2003.

2000? Great showing in that Division Series vs. the Mariners. I think Thomas, Ordonez, and Konerko's popups are still waiting to drop. The Sox barely broke .500 after the All-Star Break. I went to Minnesota and watched them clinch in a loss. What a magical moment!

1994? Oh, yeah, the strike in which the hawks among the owners were led by none other than Jerry Reinsdorf. You do recall we only had a one-game lead when that happened, too. Right?

1993? George Bell and Bo Jackson really came through. I'm so glad we "stole" Bell from the Cubs and Jackson...that was really good PR. Too bad they didn't do squat.

1983? That was when the bloom on the rose was still fresh. The GM was still Hemond. Hawk saw to it that that didn't last too much longer. Jerry Dybzynski? A name for the ages.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-29-2003, 04:38 PM
I think after spending most of the 20th century as the hometown to not just the world's worst baseball franchise, but the second-worst franchise too, we Chicagoans will accept practically anything as being worthy of getting excited about.

Am I the only one here who realizes that the Flubbies beating the Braves was the first time a Chicago team *won* a playoff series since 1917? A measly playoff series!

Forget about championships. We haven't come closer than Early Wynn's complete game shutout victory in Game 1 of the World Series in 1959. We lost that series 4 games to 2. We didn't even make it to Game 7! Should I remind everyone that Early Wynn lived a full life and now is dead?

I mean this is just stupid. Even the Wirtz's pathetic Chicago Blackhawks win playoff series, and everyone in the world knows he and his teams are all losers.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to give Jerry Reinsdorf gold stars because he won 3 division titles in 23 seasons and managed exactly 3 post-season victories (none at home) in the process. That's just pathetic.

:angry:

Brian26
11-29-2003, 07:13 PM
But the problem I have with both Torn and PHG is that you guys focus on the end results. I admit that all of the playoff defeats have been disappointing. I'm arguiing the point that Torn brought up a few posts earlier. He said these teams never humored him and gave him any reason to believe that we could win something. I totally disagree. Looking at the final results isn't fair. I want you to think about what it felt like going into the playoffs. You didn't think we had at least a chance in 2000 after the way we manhandled NY and Cleveland all year? You didn't think we had a chance to win the division and maybe go deep into the playoffs up until the Minnesota series in 2003? You didn't think we had a chance in 1993 or 1983? I will agree that the end results are all disappointing and heartbreaking. The 2000 pop-up machine is a terrible memory and a running joke between a lot of people. Don't downplay those seasons, though. Yes, we didn't win the ultimate prize, but those were competitive teams that had a hell of chance to go all the way. The end result doesn't take away from that. We could have easily won the World Series in 1983 and 1993 if a few balls bounced the other way. I'm not being a Reinsdorf apologist, but I'm trying to be a realist.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-29-2003, 07:29 PM
If we're not supposed to be focused on the "end results," exactly what are we supposed to be focused on? I love the team's history and the taste of the churros as much as the next guy, but so what?

I don't feel it is too much to expect that ONCE in my ****ing life I could experience the thrill of my ****ing baseball team winning a world championship. How you think what we've been served the last 23 seasons is going to get us there is beyond me.

That's the thing about supporting the White Sox that you don't seem willing to acknowledge. We're getting old and some of us are dying. And Jerry Reinsdorf isn't doing a damned thing about it besides crying poor and watching his investment get bigger and bigger.

RedPinStripes
11-29-2003, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
If we're not supposed to be focused on the "end results," exactly what are we supposed to be focused on? I love the team's history and the taste of the churros as much as the next guy, but so what?

I don't feel it is too much to expect that ONCE in my ****ing life I could experience the thrill of my ****ing baseball team winning a world championship. How you think what we've been served the last 23 seasons is going to get us there is beyond me.

That's the thing about supporting the White Sox that you don't seem willing to acknowledge. We're getting old and some of us are dying. And Jerry Reinsdorf isn't doing a damned thing about it besides crying poor and watching his investment get bigger and bigger.

Just think George................

You can see the 93 Sox in 10 years at Sox fest. Then in 2020, you can see the 1 year wonder 2000 Sox at Sox fest. Such Memories

PaleHoseGeorge
11-29-2003, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
Just think George................

You can see the 93 Sox in 10 years at Sox fest. Then in 2020, you can see the 1 year wonder 2000 Sox at Sox fest. Such Memories

Okay, now I'm really depressed.

:)

:reinsy
"Do you guys have any idea how much I'll be able to charge for parking and bleacher seats in 2020?" <orgasm>

RedPinStripes
11-29-2003, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Okay, now I'm really depressed.

:)

:reinsy
"Do you guys have any idea how much I'll be able to charge for parking and bleacher seats in 2020?" <orgasm>

I was out with CubKilla the other night and he brought up a good point about the "Neighborhood renovation". JR owns all that land around the Cell. All those lots are big real estate. And we know JR cashed in on real estate before he owned the Sox. Now with houses going for 300,000 in that area , what do you thik is gonna happen to all the convienet parking if bridgeport becomes a wrigley ville type place? Those lots will be sold in pieces and JR will be the wealthiest man in Chicago.

:reinsy
"pretty good idea huh?"

Blueprint1
11-29-2003, 09:57 PM
the state owns the parking lots.

Brian26
11-29-2003, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Blueprint1
the state owns the parking lots.

You mean Cubkilla and Redpinstripes don't know the whole scoop? Wow.

Daver
11-29-2003, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by Blueprint1
the state owns the parking lots.

I would like to see the transaction link for this,it would be public record,and I can find no info to the state of IL owning any property other than the lot south of 35th,and east of Sheilds.

Tragg
11-29-2003, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
But the problem I have with both Torn and PHG is that you guys focus on the end results. I admit that all of the playoff defeats have been disappointing. I'm arguiing the point that Torn brought up a few posts earlier. He said these teams never humored him and gave him any reason to believe that we could win something. I totally disagree. Looking at the final results isn't fair. I want you to think about what it felt like going into the playoffs. You didn't think we had at least a chance in 2000 after the way we manhandled NY and Cleveland all year? You didn't think we had a chance to win the division and maybe go deep into the playoffs up until the Minnesota series in 2003? You didn't think we had a chance in 1993 or 1983? I will agree that the end results are all disappointing and heartbreaking. The 2000 pop-up machine is a terrible memory and a running joke between a lot of people. Don't downplay those seasons, though. Yes, we didn't win the ultimate prize, but those were competitive teams that had a hell of chance to go all the way. The end result doesn't take away from that. We could have easily won the World Series in 1983 and 1993 if a few balls bounced the other way. I'm not being a Reinsdorf apologist, but I'm trying to be a realist.

Actually, I agree with that (well, I agree re 1983 and 1993) - and yes, had the ball bounced our way we might have won a WS in either of those years (especially 1983 - win that extra inning game 4, and we have Lamar for game 5).
Yes, it generally takes some luck to win the WS - BUT, if you put yourself in that position often enough, luck will finally come your way (unless you are the marlins - have 2 winning teams in your history and also have 2 WS titles). The problem is that we've basically been in position twice in JR's tenure (3 times if you count 1994 - yet, whose fault was that? JR's). We've been average or better more often than not, but had WS talent only 2 or 3 times in 20 years - that's not often enough to have a reasonable expectation of winning a WS

With KW, we may actually stumble into something - at least he's TRYING to win, despite the constraints around him. He makes plenty of boneheaded moves (and some good ones), but he doesn't just sit on his ass when he knows he has an inferior product - he tries to make us better (in contrast to his predecessor).

voodoochile
11-30-2003, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Tragg
Actually, I agree with that (well, I agree re 1983 and 1993) - and yes, had the ball bounced our way we might have won a WS in either of those years (especially 1983 - win that extra inning game 4, and we have Lamar for game 5).
Yes, it generally takes some luck to win the WS - BUT, if you put yourself in that position often enough, luck will finally come your way (unless you are the marlins - have 2 winning teams in your history and also have 2 WS titles). The problem is that we've basically been in position twice in JR's tenure (3 times if you count 1994 - yet, whose fault was that? JR's). We've been average or better more often than not, but had WS talent only 2 or 3 times in 20 years - that's not often enough to have a reasonable expectation of winning a WS

With KW, we may actually stumble into something - at least he's TRYING to win, despite the constraints around him. He makes plenty of boneheaded moves (and some good ones), but he doesn't just sit on his ass when he knows he has an inferior product - he tries to make us better (in contrast to his predecessor).

It isn't even the number of times he has had post-season talent that most ticks me off. It is the way he is willing to cut and run at the first sign of trouble be it in the standings or in his pocket book. He wants the fans to be there for him, but has not proved he is worthy of our devotion on a regular basis, it's really that simple. Yes, I still support the team, but like most people, I go to move games when the team is worth watching.

I have no desire to pay to sit through 81 home games every year just to watch the Sox win 82 games and fall out of the playoff hunt in August or early September when a key pickup or two could have made a huge difference.

If JR would prove to me he really truly wants a winner by hiring proven talent in the front office (and the next time will be the first or at least the first time in over a decade), make the trades to acquire talent at the deadline to give the Sox a late season push, stop expecting all of his minor league talent to be superstars and make one solid 5 year run of playoff appearances (heck, I'd settle for 3 in a row at this point in time) I might start to believe that he truly cares as much as I do and he says he does.

But, every time this team gets close, he shuts the pocket book. There has been one team that was genuinely built to win a World Series in my lifetime and that was the 1994 team (and to some extent the 2003 squad). Yes, the other years mentioned earlier in this thread had talent, but for the most part they were one year wonders. Normally teams don't win it all their first time through the playoffs as a group. Normally a team slowly builds to a championship, finding a good group of kids who develop into veterans, adding a few key FA veterans, adding a pitching stud or two and then finding a few more young hungry kids in the minors a few years later. Finally after 5 years you have a pennant contender that usually loses the first and/or second time through the playoffs before finally putting it together and winning it all.

Everytime the Sox get close, they trade off the now veterans, refuse to re-sign the stud pitchers and then go with a youth movement and start over. It gets old. I would love for him to prove me a liar, but again, the next time will be the first.

Make the playoffs two years in a row. It's the ALC for cripes sake. It isn't exactly a tough division and it genuinely has 3 small market teams to compete with. It shouldn't be that hard to get over the hump a couple of years in a row. The Mariners did it, why can't we?

Tragg
11-30-2003, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
as much as I do and he says he does.

But, every time this team gets close, he shuts the pocket book. There has been one team that was genuinely built to win a World Series in my lifetime and that was the 1994 team (and to some extent the 2003 squad). Yes, the other years mentioned earlier in this thread had talent, but for the most part they were one year wonders. Normally teams don't win it all their first time through the playoffs as a group. Normally a team slowly builds to a championship, finding a good group of kids who develop into veterans, adding a few key FA veterans, adding a pitching stud or two and then finding a few more young hungry kids in the minors a few years later. Finally after 5 years you have a pennant contender that usually loses the first and/or second time through the playoffs before finally putting it together and winning it all.



Not sure I really agree with that. IN the early 1980s, signing Fisk, baseball's premiere catcher, was HUGE. It sent a message to baseball and the fans that JR and Einhorn (whom I think was basically an equal partner then) were serious about winning. I think that Floyd Bannister was also a big time (and pricetag) free agent signing. While Hoyt had a career year that year, he was a good pitcher until the nose candy got the better of him and Burns and Datsun were solid developing pitchers. I don't think Luzinski came cheap either (not sure about that - maybe he was cheap). We had no SS and our pen was iffy but he did spend some money. Baines was an emerging star and Kittle was a young slugger who knocked the cover off the ball in the minors. This team was slowly getting better in 1981 and 1982 - it culminated in 1983 - I still can't believe that team played .500 ball the next year because they sure didn't seem like one year wonders to me and it seemed like a natural evolution as talent developed and was added.

TornLabrum
11-30-2003, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by Tragg
Not sure I really agree with that. IN the early 1980s, signing Fisk, baseball's premiere catcher, was HUGE. It sent a message to baseball and the fans that JR and Einhorn (whom I think was basically an equal partner then) were serious about winning. I think that Floyd Bannister was also a big time (and pricetag) free agent signing. While Hoyt had a career year that year, he was a good pitcher until the nose candy got the better of him and Burns and Datsun were solid developing pitchers. I don't think Luzinski came cheap either (not sure about that - maybe he was cheap). We had no SS and our pen was iffy but he did spend some money. Baines was an emerging star and Kittle was a young slugger who knocked the cover off the ball in the minors. This team was slowly getting better in 1981 and 1982 - it culminated in 1983 - I still can't believe that team played .500 ball the next year because they sure didn't seem like one year wonders to me and it seemed like a natural evolution as talent developed and was added.

More than rumor has it that the '83 club liked to party. Maybe it caught up with them in '84.

voodoochile
11-30-2003, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Tragg
Not sure I really agree with that. IN the early 1980s, signing Fisk, baseball's premiere catcher, was HUGE. It sent a message to baseball and the fans that JR and Einhorn (whom I think was basically an equal partner then) were serious about winning. I think that Floyd Bannister was also a big time (and pricetag) free agent signing. While Hoyt had a career year that year, he was a good pitcher until the nose candy got the better of him and Burns and Datsun were solid developing pitchers. I don't think Luzinski came cheap either (not sure about that - maybe he was cheap). We had no SS and our pen was iffy but he did spend some money. Baines was an emerging star and Kittle was a young slugger who knocked the cover off the ball in the minors. This team was slowly getting better in 1981 and 1982 - it culminated in 1983 - I still can't believe that team played .500 ball the next year because they sure didn't seem like one year wonders to me and it seemed like a natural evolution as talent developed and was added.

Okay, fine. So he followed the pattern 20 years ago and sort of once again a decade ago and for a brief moment last year. But in each case, when the monetary stakes went up JR allowed the GM to dump the team and run for a young team again. Each of those squads got one chance to prove they were potential pennant winners. The minute things started to dip, they dumped the whole lot of them and went young instead of upgrading at a few key positions, they went back to the basics.

JR may want to win, but he wants to do it on his terms. He will NOT do whatever it takes to field a winner. He will not keep a solid veteran team intact and try to fill in some holes. He will not pay for talent long term and thus he will get MAYBE one pennant contender a decade. The fans know the act. They know what is coming this off season. They are expecting to lose Maggs and Colon because JR just won't take the "hit" financially and try to put this team over the top.

Change my mind, JR. Prove me wrong.

Up the offer to sign Colon to a 3 year deal.
Add one more veteran starter - they can be a retread, I don't care.
Get Maggs to sign an extension.
Sign a veteran 2B who can hit and field (Castillo, Walker).
Find a leadoff CF.
Keep Sullivan and Gordon for the bullpen.

That team will compete until 2006 which will give them a very solid 3 year window to win it all. Now is the moment to prove he wants to win as badly as he says he does. There is a solid group of veteran talent (Maggs, Frank, Lee, Buehrle, Colon, Loaiza, Gordon, Sullivan) with some good young players (Crede, Marte, Olivo, Garland). Don't blow it up, find a way to make it better. break the cycle of mediocrity. Make a statement to the fans that now is the time.

Or don't and prove us haters right...

CubKilla
11-30-2003, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Brian26
You mean Cubkilla and Redpinstripes don't know the whole scoop? Wow.

FYI..... the State owns the land bordered by 35th on the North, Wentworth on the East, 37th St. on the South, and Normal on the West. This includes the IDOT facility on 35th and Normal where I park my car for every Sox game because I'm employed by the State of Illinois. I've seen the city's plans for what is to become of the Bridgeport Neighborhood. The lots on the grid North of 35th St to 33rd St (excluding Armour Park), East to Wentworth, West to Normal, and the lot with boundaries of 37th St North, about 38th and 1/2 St. South, Shields East and the RR Tracks West are marked "Private Ownership." I wonder who owns the only parcels of land that were vacant or were occupied by Old Comiskey Park when JR bought the team?

gosox41
11-30-2003, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
There is one point where my Broadway play analogy breaks down. That is the fact that you don't generally have more than a financial, and perhaps an artistic, interest in the play. On the other hand, the term "fan" is actually short for fanatic. Fans have an emotional involvement with their team.

My emotional involvment with the Sox began 48 years ago when I was a 5-year-old kid. They were my number 1 team. I maintained a secondary rooting interest in the Cubs until about a decade ago, and then I made a crucial mistake.

I made the decision that Reinsdorf really wanted to win more than the Tribune Co. did. So I dumped the Cubs only to find out that Reinsdorf was no better than the Tribune Co., and in fact was more of a cheapskate.

I've seen the Sox run by Dorothy and Chuck Comiskey, Bill Veeck, Art Allyn, John Allyn, Bill Veeck again, and Jerry Reinsdorf. That's an average of six years per regime in the 48 years I've been following the Sox. Ownership comes and ownership goes. The game is what I thrive on.

If I didn't love baseball to what is probably an irrational extent, I probably would quit going to Sox games. I do love going to Kane County and Joliet. But I'm not a young parent with kids to entertain. I like the quality of ball played in the major leagues.

I'd just like to see the team I've got 48 years of my life invested in play it at a level that would at least humor me into thinking that they might have a chance to actually win something every once in a while.

The Sox have won nothing since two years before my parents were born. One of those parents is already dead, and the other is 84 years old. My grandfather at least got to see them win two World Series by the time he was 28 years old. The next two generations of the family have seen nothing.

The Sox owners for the last 23 years have been the group led by Jerry Reinsdorf. He's the owner. The buck stops with him.

All I'm saying is JR is just playing off people's emotions and taking advantage of them. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but in general, it hurts an individual's creditbility when his actions speak the exact oppsoite of his words. It also seems that too many people make too many assumptions that they want to believe because it's convenient.

Bob

gosox41
11-30-2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Did you really think that after blowing off April-June, we really had a chance in the 2003 season? Did you really think that when we couldn't be the Detroit freakin' Tigers? No, I was not amused in 2003.

2000? Great showing in that Division Series vs. the Mariners. I think Thomas, Ordonez, and Konerko's popups are still waiting to drop. The Sox barely broke .500 after the All-Star Break. I went to Minnesota and watched them clinch in a loss. What a magical moment!

1994? Oh, yeah, the strike in which the hawks among the owners were led by none other than Jerry Reinsdorf. You do recall we only had a one-game lead when that happened, too. Right?

1993? George Bell and Bo Jackson really came through. I'm so glad we "stole" Bell from the Cubs and Jackson...that was really good PR. Too bad they didn't do squat.

1983? That was when the bloom on the rose was still fresh. The GM was still Hemond. Hawk saw to it that that didn't last too much longer. Jerry Dybzynski? A name for the ages.


Man, you really do sound negative. I thought the 1983 and 1993 team had a great chance in the playoffs. 1994 was a disappointment. When the Sox reached first place in 2003, I thought they had a decent chance oft aking the divison because the talent was there for it too happen.

Bob

gosox41
11-30-2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile




If JR would prove to me he really truly wants a winner by hiring proven talent in the front office (and the next time will be the first or at least the first time in over a decade), make the trades to acquire talent at the deadline to give the Sox a late season push, stop expecting all of his minor league talent to be superstars and make one solid 5 year run of playoff appearances (heck, I'd settle for 3 in a row at this point in time) I might start to believe that he truly cares as much as I do and he says he does.

But, every time this team gets close, he shuts the pocket book. There has been one team that was genuinely built to win a World Series in my lifetime and that was the 1994 team (and to some extent the 2003 squad). Yes, the other years mentioned earlier in this thread had talent, but for the most part they were one year wonders. Normally teams don't win it all their first time through the playoffs as a group. Normally a team slowly builds to a championship, finding a good group of kids who develop into veterans, adding a few key FA veterans, adding a pitching stud or two and then finding a few more young hungry kids in the minors a few years later. Finally after 5 years you have a pennant contender that usually loses the first and/or second time through the playoffs before finally putting it together and winning it all.

Everytime the Sox get close, they trade off the now veterans, refuse to re-sign the stud pitchers and then go with a youth movement and start over. It gets old. I would love for him to prove me a liar, but again, the next time will be the first.
exactly a tough division and it genuinely has 3 small market teams to compete with. It shouldn't be that hard to get over the


This is what I mean by false claims and selctive memory;

1983: The Sox add Julio Cruz in a mid season trade who helps lead the Sox to a winner.

1984: Sox keep the same team around (which is what the public wanted) and even adds a veteran in Tom Seaver to fill out the rotation.

1991-After coming close to winning the division the Sox go out and trade for a lead off hitter in Tim Raines. Other moves like Steve Sax are to follow.

1993. Down the stretch the Sox go out and acquire Tim Belcher.

1994- Sox have one of the Top 5 payrolls in the league.

2000- In a playoff stretch the Sox add Charles Johnson and Baines thus adding payroll for playoff run.

2003-Sox start to get hot and KW adds Alomar and Everett.

Now, I'm not debating whether these moves were good/bad in terms of personnel. What I am mentioning is when you say JR trades players every time the Sox get close.

Obviously there are instances where he has traded players (ie 1997) but to say he does it "Every Time" is an inane comment. Above are example where JR added talent for a run at the playoffs. Like I said I'm not going to start debating the quality of moves, just the fact that JR went out and added talent and more important to you PAYROLL.

Bob

voodoochile
11-30-2003, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
This is what I mean by false claims and selctive memory;

1983: The Sox add Julio Cruz in a mid season trade who helps lead the Sox to a winner.

1984: Sox keep the same team around (which is what the public wanted) and even adds a veteran in Tom Seaver to fill out the rotation.

1991-After coming close to winning the division the Sox go out and trade for a lead off hitter in Tim Raines. Other moves like Steve Sax are to follow.

1993. Down the stretch the Sox go out and acquire Tim Belcher.

1994- Sox have one of the Top 5 payrolls in the league.

2000- In a playoff stretch the Sox add Charles Johnson and Baines thus adding payroll for playoff run.

2003-Sox start to get hot and KW adds Alomar and Everett.

Now, I'm not debating whether these moves were good/bad in terms of personnel. What I am mentioning is when you say JR trades players every time the Sox get close.

Obviously there are instances where he has traded players (ie 1997) but to say he does it "Every Time" is an inane comment. Above are example where JR added talent for a run at the playoffs. Like I said I'm not going to start debating the quality of moves, just the fact that JR went out and added talent and more important to you PAYROLL.

Bob

Yes, he tends to add a player or two when the team is making a run in any given year, but once that team fails, he dismantles it the following season. Wouldn't you like to see last year's team get another crack? Wouldn't you like to see the Sox make a serious 5 year run at the pennant?

Yes, I think a higher payroll will lead to more wins and a better chance at the playoffs year after year. In fact, I think the stats will bear that out. My point is that JR takes single or double cracks with a given group and then starts rebuilding. That is not the best way to win championships. That is true in all sports. You want to win? Find a good core of players and keep them together for several years adding pieces as needed. JR won't do it. He'd rather be rich than be a winner.

FarWestChicago
11-30-2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
You want to win? Find a good core of players and keep them together for several years adding pieces as needed. JR won't do it. He'd rather be rich than be a winner. I have no problem with JR having that attitude. It's his perogative. However, I would prefer to see him sell the team to somebody with a burning desire to win.

Lip Man 1
11-30-2003, 01:40 PM
GoSox41:

Just FYI, this is from a column of mine at WSI that went up on December 31, 2001.

" Looking back over the past twenty years, the Sox have made the following moves in years when they were (at least on paper) in "contention"...

1981- picked up outfielder Jerry Turner and pitcher Jerry Koosman

1982- picked up pitchers Jim Kern, Warren Brusstar and Sparky Lyle

1983- picked up 2nd baseman Julio Cruz (in June)

1985- did nothing

1990- picked up outfielder Phil Bradley

1991- did nothing

1992- did nothing

1993- picked up pitcher Tim Belcher

1994- did nothing (at least through August 11th when the labor impasse forced a strike by the players union. Remember at the time of the impasse the Sox only led Cleveland by one game.)

1996- picked up pitcher Tony Castillo

2000- picked up catcher Charles Johnson and DH Harold Baines

Overall not very impressive is it? The Sox reluctance to get key players down the stretch really hurt them in 1991 and 1996.

In 1991 the Sox trailed the Twins by one game on July 31st (the trading deadline) and did nothing. It was shortly after that point the Sox went into a major slump the next three weeks and basically fell out of contention, losing 15 of 19 to drop nine games out.

Even worse was August 1996 as the Sox were blowing a 4 game lead on the Orioles in the wild card chase. The bullpen you remember set a record (since broken) for most blown saves. The Sox got Tony Castillo who did very little. Roberto Hernandez and Tony Phillips then blasted management the following week in The Sporting News and proved to be prophets as the Sox fell apart. That collapse was the sowing of the first seeds that led to the "White Flag" trade in 1997 (in my opinion)."

Lip

voodoochile
11-30-2003, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
I have no problem with JR having that attitude. It's his perogative. However, I would prefer to see him sell the team to somebody with a burning desire to win.

Sure, then he actually could be rich. The team is worth times what it was worth when he bought it. My main complaint is his constant harping on how badly he wants to win. The team history under his control doesn't back that claim up...

Of course all of that is JMHO...

TornLabrum
11-30-2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Man, you really do sound negative. I thought the 1983 and 1993 team had a great chance in the playoffs. 1994 was a disappointment. When the Sox reached first place in 2003, I thought they had a decent chance oft aking the divison because the talent was there for it too happen.

Bob

One thing that killed the Sox is when Kittle got hit by that pitch. Last summer (2002) at a WCSF luncheon, Roland Hemond told how he went ballistic on the O's GM. To this day he and Kittle both swear they did it on purpose.

In '93 we might have actually done something if we'd gotten any production from Bell and Jackson. We didn't. It also didn't help that McDowell was tipping his pitches.

Here's something to live by. If you're a Sox fan you have one of two options:

1) Accept defeat graciously;

2) Bitch and moan when we (inevitably lose). I prefer the latter.

TornLabrum
11-30-2003, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
This is what I mean by false claims and selctive memory;

1983: The Sox add Julio Cruz in a mid season trade who helps lead the Sox to a winner.

1984: Sox keep the same team around (which is what the public wanted) and even adds a veteran in Tom Seaver to fill out the rotation.

There were some key changes in 1984 besides adding Seaver that did nothing to help the club. In the process of getting Seaver and closer Ron Reed, they let go Dennis Lamp (7-7, 15 saves and 5 starts) and Jerry Koosman (11-7, 2 saves and 24 starts). They could have used both of them when Britt Burns and James went south.

As you may recall, Burns dropped to 4-12 and Reed was 0-6 with just 12 saves as the closer. Gee, I wonder if his being 41 years old had something to do with that....

RedPinStripes
11-30-2003, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
You mean Cubkilla and Redpinstripes don't know the whole scoop? Wow.

When we dont know we can always turn to guys like you.

RedPinStripes
11-30-2003, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
I'm not being a Reinsdorf apologist, but I'm trying to be a realist.

If you're trying to be a realist, understand that this team hasnt won **** since 1917 . What's a division title? It's a good start, but it's getting old. I want to see a winner, not an ass kickin in the first round of the playoffs.

Brian26
11-30-2003, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Yes, he tends to add a player or two when the team is making a run in any given year, but once that team fails, he dismantles it the following season.

Just like in 1996 when we missed the Wild Card spot by a hair, and JR went out after the season and signed Albert Belle, one of the biggest offensive weapons in the game, from our arch rival.

Brian26
11-30-2003, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
One thing that killed the Sox is when Kittle got hit by that pitch. Last summer (2002) at a WCSF luncheon, Roland Hemond told how he went ballistic on the O's GM. To this day he and Kittle both swear they did it on purpose.


Hemond told that story at Soxfest 2003, too. He was so hot that he went down to the field prior to the next game and told LaRussa to do a two-for-one (hit two Orioles for every Sox player that got drilled).

Brian26
11-30-2003, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
There were some key changes in 1984 besides adding Seaver that did nothing to help the club. In the process of getting Seaver and closer Ron Reed, they let go Dennis Lamp (7-7, 15 saves and 5 starts) and Jerry Koosman (11-7, 2 saves and 24 starts). They could have used both of them when Britt Burns and James went south

James who? Bob James? Bob James wasn't with the Sox until 1985.

Brian26
11-30-2003, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
If you're trying to be a realist, understand that this team hasnt won **** since 1917 . What's a division title? It's a good start, but it's getting old. I want to see a winner, not an ass kickin in the first round of the playoffs.

You and I both, but you can't win the World Series until you make the playoffs. You don't even consider '59, '83, or '93 as anything memorable? That's too bad.

Brian26
11-30-2003, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
When we dont know we can always turn to guys like you.

When you're done calling into the Score, be sure to give me a ring then.

TornLabrum
11-30-2003, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
James who? Bob James? Bob James wasn't with the Sox until 1985.

Should have said Reed. I was thinking of James for a moment, and inadvertantly typed his name. Another aging reliever who fizzled. (I happen to have the '86 Sox stratomatic cards, so James is etched in my mind.)

TornLabrum
11-30-2003, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
You and I both, but you can't win the World Series until you make the playoffs. You don't even consider '59, '83, or '93 as anything memorable? That's too bad.

'59 is quite memorable because we actually DID make it to the Series for the only time in my lifetime.

RedPinStripes
11-30-2003, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
You and I both, but you can't win the World Series until you make the playoffs. You don't even consider '59, '83, or '93 as anything memorable? That's too bad.

59' Yes, but i wasnt around to see it. I wish i was. I get sick when we celebreate a division title while teams like the Yankees are celebreating how many years in a row they won the series. Think they care about a division title?

RedPinStripes
11-30-2003, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
When you're done calling into the Score, be sure to give me a ring then.

What the hell are you talking about? :?: :?: :?: :?:

Daver
11-30-2003, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
When you're done calling into the Score, be sure to give me a ring then.

I'll file this away for future refference,just in case I can't get through to Julie Sweica.

sox3
11-30-2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Yes, he wants to win - but only if he does it HIS way (i.e., only spend what you're bringing in, extreme loyalty to those who are loyal to you, no long term deals for pitchers, etc.).

These seem like signs of intelligence or admirable personal qualities.
Although when I recall Bevington, I would agree that loyalty can be taken too far...

...firing fan favorite Jimmy Piersall, forcing fan favorite Harry Caray to the Dark, er, I mean North, Side...

Quite frankly, IMHO, Jimmy & Harry's act was getting tiresome. Piersall could never take the abuse he would dish out and Harry had a tough time with the Sox improvements after JR & EE bought the team. He seem to think that he was more improtant than the game on the field. I think he liked it better when the team was lousy and he was the show that everyone wanted to see/hear.
Unfortunately, JR replaced Harry with Hawk (more misguided loyalty).
I live in hope that someday the Sox will hire Jon Miller to do play-by-play and partner him with some interesting ex-Sox player (Paciorek, Seaver, KW, ?) for color.

...taking the Sox off of free TV...helping to facilitate the '94 strike with the Sox in first place...

Yes, these were really dumb mistakes that JR had made. Since then, he has negotiated with WGN & WCIU to put more games on free TV and he was much quieter during the last bargaining session, so I think he has learned something from those errors.

Back on the subject of (over)spending, I think we are starting to see many other teams get smarter about their spending. The hot topic this off-season has been which teams are stuck with which bad (too $$/too long) contracts.
With the possible exception of anyone who signs with George Steinbrenner, I'll be very surprised to see anyone get a deal longer than 3 years & for more money than $12 mil/yr.

I believe that by 2006, the Sox will be free of any longterm, high-priced commitment (unless they trade Konerko & Thomas before then without taking on any new headaches). When I see teams like Arizona, LA and Texas, I think that their fans will be waiting a long time before they will be truly competitive in any realistic way. I think the Sox are better off than that. If they don't do anything incredibly stupid, they can at least take a run at their division year after year.

thezeker
11-30-2003, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Chisox cali says:

I haven't even been alive for 20 years.

Cali you'r right, I'm a moron. I've followed baseball closely for 43 years and don't know a thing.

You're 19 or 19 1/2 and your a computerized, statistical self proclaimed genius.

I've deliberately stopped posting more provocative things simply because the folks in your generation are getting to me. Yet I continue to see threads started ripping the owner, this organization and the mediocre record it has produced over the last 23 years. Yet I'm to blame for that.

Makes sense to me. Simple solution, put me on your ignore list and my pessimism won't piss you off.

When I was growing up my late dad always told me children should be seem and not heard. Obviously your dad never told you that, or if he did you ignored the advice.

Lip

Lip,

You should be ashamed of yourself!!!

That's one of the saddest posts I've ever seen on this board but after reading your trash for the last couple of months this does not surprise me.

Age has nothing to do with wisdom. Some people get wiser with age and other's thinking is so skewed that they could live to 1000 years old and never get any wiser!

By the same token there are some young people whom seem to show extraordinary wisdom for their ages. At 19 1/2 years old his posts show a lot more wisdom than your rantings and ravings where you are so good at spending White Sox money when the fans won't even support this team anymore no matter how good they are.

I'm sorry you are so frustrated Lip but someone once told me before you criticize put yourself in the other person's shoes and maybe you will get a better understanding of where they are coming from.

I tried to put myself in your shoes and that is a very scary place to be!

Brian26
11-30-2003, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Should have said Reed. I was thinking of James for a moment, and inadvertantly typed his name. Another aging reliever who fizzled. (I happen to have the '86 Sox stratomatic cards, so James is etched in my mind.)

I respect that. A man after my own heart. I actually have the entire '85 set of cards. Had fun a couple of months ago playing a World Series of the '85 Mets v. '85 Sox. Mets beat us in 7 games. Seaver and Burns pitched their asses off, and Tim Hulett, of all people, was the big hitting star.

Brian26
11-30-2003, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Daver
I'll file this away for future refference,just in case I can't get through to Julie Sweica.

Cool. I'll be busy calling J Hood.

Brian26
11-30-2003, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
What the hell are you talking about? :?: :?: :?: :?:

Just saying that sometimes the talk here reminds me of some of the ignorance you hear on AM sports radio.

I'm eagerly waiting for someone to suggest we package Konerko, Koch and Valentin for A-Rod. Wait, someone already did.

RedPinStripes
11-30-2003, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Just saying that sometimes the talk here reminds me of some of the ignorance you hear on AM sports radio.

I'm eagerly waiting for someone to suggest we package Konerko, Koch and Valentin for A-Rod. Wait, someone already did.

So you're saying I'm ignorant for not being satisfied with 3 division titles in my time as a Sox fan? Or because you dont know the facts of what JR owns around that park?

Blueprint1
11-30-2003, 08:41 PM
Who cares if JR owns the parking lots why do we care again? He might sell them and make money some time in the future if he does even own them. Alright i still dont see why we care. This is the United States if you own something and it gains value you have the right to sell it. Are you suggesting we take this property away from him? I dont understand your point at all? You can post all you want JR is not going to sell the team. All i know is the stadium is owned by the State of Illinois and leased by JR and the Sox. Its a great lease for the ball club and not so great for the State of Illinois. What parking lots are included in this lease I dont know. Who owns the other Whitesox parking lots I dont know nor do i care.

RedPinStripes
11-30-2003, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by Blueprint1
Who cares if JR owns the parking lots why do we care again? He might sell them and make money some time in the future if he does even own them. Alright i still dont see why we care. This is the United States if you own something and it gains value you have the right to sell it. Are you suggesting we take this property away from him? I dont understand your point at all? You can post all you want JR is not going to sell the team. All i know is the stadium is owned by the State of Illinois and leased by JR and the Sox. Its a great lease for the ball club and not so great for the State of Illinois. What parking lots are included in this lease I dont know. Who owns the other Whitesox parking lots I dont know nor do i care.

He's the one that threw a shot at me over it. You wanna join the fun? Am i expected stay quiet as he calls me "ignorant?" And if we're not supposed to care or talk about , why the hell did you add to it?

Blueprint1
11-30-2003, 09:31 PM
Well, because you seem to be getting very bent out of shape because JR might make money off one of his investments. Calm down

CubKilla
11-30-2003, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
You and I both, but you can't win the World Series until you make the playoffs. You don't even consider '59, '83, or '93 as anything memorable? That's too bad.

I wasn't alive in '59 but '83, '93, and '00 are only memorable ***whoopings.

gosox41
11-30-2003, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
There were some key changes in 1984 besides adding Seaver that did nothing to help the club. In the process of getting Seaver and closer Ron Reed, they let go Dennis Lamp (7-7, 15 saves and 5 starts) and Jerry Koosman (11-7, 2 saves and 24 starts). They could have used both of them when Britt Burns and James went south.

As you may recall, Burns dropped to 4-12 and Reed was 0-6 with just 12 saves as the closer. Gee, I wonder if his being 41 years old had something to do with that....


Just about the whole 1983 team went south except for Baines and Fisk. Luzinski, Kittle, Law never equaled their 83 season after that. Hoyt had more substance abuse problems, Dotson clearly had a career year in 1983. Cruz had his turf toe issues.

But JR did bring back the core of the team and tried to tweak it a little bit. No one could predict injuries or age. If JR had dismantled the '82 team before the '84 season it would be just more ammo to use agains him.

Bob

gosox41
11-30-2003, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Yes, he tends to add a player or two when the team is making a run in any given year, but once that team fails, he dismantles it the following season. Wouldn't you like to see last year's team get another crack? Wouldn't you like to see the Sox make a serious 5 year run at the pennant?

Yes, I think a higher payroll will lead to more wins and a better chance at the playoffs year after year. In fact, I think the stats will bear that out. My point is that JR takes single or double cracks with a given group and then starts rebuilding. That is not the best way to win championships. That is true in all sports. You want to win? Find a good core of players and keep them together for several years adding pieces as needed. JR won't do it. He'd rather be rich than be a winner.

Of course I'd like to see the Sox make an extended run. They did bring back pretty much the same team in '84. In 1990, he tried to build on that. Payroll increased every year until 1994 (top 5 in the league then.) That's a 5 year run.

After 2000, KW has been aggressive (and stupid) about adding a winner. The 2001 team had a $64 mill. payroll and failed miserable.

Bob

gosox41
11-30-2003, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
GoSox41:

Just FYI, this is from a column of mine at WSI that went up on December 31, 2001.

" Looking back over the past twenty years, the Sox have made the following moves in years when they were (at least on paper) in "contention"...

1981- picked up outfielder Jerry Turner and pitcher Jerry Koosman

1982- picked up pitchers Jim Kern, Warren Brusstar and Sparky Lyle

1983- picked up 2nd baseman Julio Cruz (in June)

1985- did nothing

1990- picked up outfielder Phil Bradley

1991- did nothing

1992- did nothing

1993- picked up pitcher Tim Belcher

1994- did nothing (at least through August 11th when the labor impasse forced a strike by the players union. Remember at the time of the impasse the Sox only led Cleveland by one game.)

1996- picked up pitcher Tony Castillo

2000- picked up catcher Charles Johnson and DH Harold Baines

Overall not very impressive is it? The Sox reluctance to get key players down the stretch really hurt them in 1991 and 1996.

In 1991 the Sox trailed the Twins by one game on July 31st (the trading deadline) and did nothing. It was shortly after that point the Sox went into a major slump the next three weeks and basically fell out of contention, losing 15 of 19 to drop nine games out.

Even worse was August 1996 as the Sox were blowing a 4 game lead on the Orioles in the wild card chase. The bullpen you remember set a record (since broken) for most blown saves. The Sox got Tony Castillo who did very little. Roberto Hernandez and Tony Phillips then blasted management the following week in The Sporting News and proved to be prophets as the Sox fell apart. That collapse was the sowing of the first seeds that led to the "White Flag" trade in 1997 (in my opinion)."

Lip

Interesting points. But what about the moves that were made in the offseason that were supposed to make the team better (I mean the moves where he went out and increased payroll, I'm not arguing personnel moves, just the effort of spending money?) Without some of those moves, the teams may not have been as good to even be in contention. Of course it would have been nice to add, but maybe they tried and couldn't get anything done. When the Sox got Belcher everyone thought Baldwin and Ruffcorn were the future aces and no one wanted to trade them. Schu was able to pull off the move without giving them up. Obviously the Internet wasn't around in this form back them, but I'm guessing in the middle of the pennant race in 1993, a lot of people here wouldn't want to give up that much talent for a Tim Belcher just like a lot of people today don't want to trade Honel.

Bob

TornLabrum
11-30-2003, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by thezeker
Lip,

By the same token there are some young people whom seem to show extraordinary wisdom for their ages. At 19 1/2 years old his posts show a lot more wisdom than your rantings and ravings where you are so good at spending White Sox money when the fans won't even support this team anymore no matter how good they are.

Which is why last year was, iirc, the seventh highest attendance in club history. Yup...staying away in droves!

TornLabrum
11-30-2003, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Just about the whole 1983 team went south except for Baines and Fisk. Luzinski, Kittle, Law never equaled their 83 season after that. Hoyt had more substance abuse problems, Dotson clearly had a career year in 1983. Cruz had his turf toe issues.

But JR did bring back the core of the team and tried to tweak it a little bit. No one could predict injuries or age. If JR had dismantled the '82 team before the '84 season it would be just more ammo to use agains him.

Bob

As I recall, Fisk only hit something like .231 in '84. Not a great year for him either. I think Law's SBs dropped to the 20s.

One thing a whole lot of people did after '83 was underestimate the contributions of Lamp and Koosman to that club, one of the main reasons I brought them up.

Brian26
11-30-2003, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
I wasn't alive in '59 but '83, '93, and '00 are only memorable ***whoopings.

Yeah, '83 was a real whooping. Best record in baseball at 99 and 63, and we lost 3-1 in a short best of 5 series because our shortstop got caught in a rundown on a lousy baserunning play. If Dibber holds second on that play, we're World Champions. Man, we sucked that year.

Brian26
11-30-2003, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
As I recall, Fisk only hit something like .231 in '84. Not a great year for him either. I think Law's SBs dropped to the 20s.

One thing a whole lot of people did after '83 was underestimate the contributions of Lamp and Koosman to that club, one of the main reasons I brought them up.

A few guys had career years in '83. Rudy Law never really matched his '83 effort after he got hurt. Luzinski was never the same after the '83 playoffs. Julio Cruz went downhill after '83 too. Fisk's 1985 season was a nice rebound, but he struggled for most of '84.

Brian26
11-30-2003, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
So you're saying I'm ignorant for not being satisfied with 3 division titles in my time as a Sox fan? Or because you dont know the facts of what JR owns around that park?

Neither. I'm saying it because you don't know who owns the parking lots.

Lip Man 1
11-30-2003, 11:11 PM
Folks:

A few points. (Interesting discussion by the way...)

In 1984 Fisk tore an abdominal muscle sliding into home plate and missed a great deal of time. When he came back he still wasn't right. In 1985 he obviously was and everyone saw the results.

I simply posted that list from a column that I did back in 2001 because it was Voodoo who brought up the point that the Sox have acquired players some years for the stretch run but then never keep them. Obviously the jury is still out on the four pick up's in 2003 but of the previous list only Koosman, Cruz, Baines and Castillo were with the club the following season.

I also recall a direct quote from Fisk in the PBS special "The Trouble With Baseball" which aired on April 4, 1993. I'm paraphrasing the quote but if needed can play the tape and post the direct comment. Fisk was making the point that Reinsdorf makes his most money when the Sox are in contention but don't actually win anything, because then JR doesn't have to pay for raises and up the team payroll while still reaping the benefit of spiked attendence and fan interest.

One final point. In looking at the whole history of JR (and I'm doing that now for a long interactive piece on him for the web site which will come out in a few months) it's important to remember that in the first three seasons that he was owner the Sox brought in two very good, expensive players each year. In 81 it was Fisk and Luzinski. In 82 Paciorek and Kemp and in 83 Cruz and Bannister.

Something happen to Reinsdorf after the 83 season. I'm still trying to find out what it was but suddenly the desire to upgrade talent stopped. It was too early for collusion which didn't start until after the 85 season, but something stopped the ride and changed his philosophy greatly.

Lip

voodoochile
11-30-2003, 11:28 PM
9Originally posted by Brian26
Just like in 1996 when we missed the Wild Card spot by a hair, and JR went out after the season and signed Albert Belle, one of the biggest offensive weapons in the game, from our arch rival.

Well, I think you have your dates confused, but I have a terrible memory for years. I am pretty sure Belle was part of the team that tanked down the stretch to blow a shot at the playoffs in 1996.

In 1997, JR gave the team exactly 4 months to be in first before tearing it down and working from scratch. You are proving my point. Given the chance to add talent and make a run at Cleveland in '97, JR chose to give up. It is a quintessential JR personnel moment.

:reinsy
"Anyone who thinks this team can catch Cleveland is crazy."

voodoochile
11-30-2003, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Of course I'd like to see the Sox make an extended run. They did bring back pretty much the same team in '84. In 1990, he tried to build on that. Payroll increased every year until 1994 (top 5 in the league then.) That's a 5 year run.

After 2000, KW has been aggressive (and stupid) about adding a winner. The 2001 team had a $64 mill. payroll and failed miserable.

Bob

Well, they did lose Frank in early May and the main acquisition during the off season in June (Boomer). Then they screwed up with the Ritchie trade the next year (ties back into my not paying for proven front office personnel nicely) before finally doing something right in 2003. Unfortunately, it looks like that team will now be dismantled because they failed and even though the fans turned out in much higher numbers, the reward will be a lower payroll.

Sucks to be us...

:reinsy
"It's all the fans' fault. If they would petition my Bud... er... Mr. $30M payroll (read: my hero)... er... Commissioner Selig to bring the AS game back every year, I MIGHT increase payroll and bring in some managerial talent... nah... why bother? Anyone want to buy a used car (lot)?"

ma_deuce
11-30-2003, 11:45 PM
:tomatoaward

Congrats!

TommyJohn
11-30-2003, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
9

Well, I think you have your dates confused, but I have a terrible memory for years. I am pretty sure Belle was part of the team that tanked down the stretch to blow a shot at the playoffs in 1996.

In 1997, JR gave the team exactly 4 months to be in first before tearing it down and working from scratch. You are proving my point. Given the chance to add talent and make a run at Cleveland in '97, JR chose to give up. It is a quintessential JR personnel moment.

:reinsy
"Anyone who thinks this team can catch Cleveland is crazy."

Belle was not part of the 1996 team. He was with a Cleveland
team that had the best record in the AL and tanked in the first
round of the playoffs against Baltimore and Roberto "Spits"
Alomar. He did not join the Sox until 1997.

gosox41
12-01-2003, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
9

Well, I think you have your dates confused, but I have a terrible memory for years. I am pretty sure Belle was part of the team that tanked down the stretch to blow a shot at the playoffs in 1996.

In 1997, JR gave the team exactly 4 months to be in first before tearing it down and working from scratch. You are proving my point. Given the chance to add talent and make a run at Cleveland in '97, JR chose to give up. It is a quintessential JR personnel moment.

:reinsy
"Anyone who thinks this team can catch Cleveland is crazy."

I'm not defending giving up, but the '97 team was playing way below expectations. Not too say things couldn't be turned around, but they didn't show much fire all year.

Second, that JR quote was taken out of context. Th Sun-Times conveniently forgot to print the first part of it whicfh was "The way the team is playing now...."


By saying it that way he was right. At the time he said it (before the trade actualyl happened) the team was playing below expectations.

Meanwhile in 2003 when JR could have thrown in the towel he kept the team together and added two players.

He could have traded guys like Colon, Gordon, and Loiaza and maybe gotten some talent to fill the many holes in the '04 team, but he stuck with an underachieving team and tried to make something out of it.

Bob

voodoochile
12-01-2003, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by TommyJohn


Belle was not part of the 1996 team. He was with a Cleveland
team that had the best record in the AL and tanked in the first
round of the playoffs against Baltimore and Roberto "Spits"
Alomar. He did not join the Sox until 1997.


Originally posted by gosox41


I'm not defending giving up, but the '97 team was playing way below expectations. Not too say things couldn't be turned around, but they didn't show much fire all year.

Second, that JR quote was taken out of context. Th Sun-Times conveniently forgot to print the first part of it whicfh was "The way the team is playing now...."


By saying it that way he was right. At the time he said it (before the trade actualyl happened) the team was playing below expectations.

Meanwhile in 2003 when JR could have thrown in the towel he kept the team together and added two players.

He could have traded guys like Colon, Gordon, and Loiaza and maybe gotten some talent to fill the many holes in the '04 team, but he stuck with an underachieving team and tried to make something out of it.

Bob

Okay, My bad, but still it becomes even worse under those circumstances. He spends all that money just to white flag it - thus killing attendance the next two seasons and forcing him to lower payroll.

Yes, getting rid of Belle's albatross contract turned out to be a good thing when his hip injury became an issue, but again, it's just more typical JR payroll silliness.

Does anyone think JR would have allowed the 2003 team to stick it out if he wasn't so close to the 1997 fiasco? He couldn't afford to give up again or he would have been forced to sell and get out because attendance would have been driven to heretofore unseen lows. He would have a hard time cracking 1M paying customers next year, IMO.

Again, this example is perfect for my argument. Regardless of whether JR's quote was taken out of context or whether the team was actually underachieving (and 3.5 back of that Cleveland juggernaut on August 1st isn't exactly stinking it up) what happens if he goes and gets some help at the deadline? Might that have energized the team? Might that have been the spark to get the Sox fire going? We will never know. Why?

:reinsy
'Why are you looking at me?"

MisterB
12-01-2003, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Does anyone think JR would have allowed the 2003 team to stick it out if he wasn't so close to the 1997 fiasco? He couldn't afford to give up again or he would have been forced to sell and get out because attendance would have been driven to heretofore unseen lows. He would have a hard time cracking 1M paying customers next year, IMO.

Wait, isn't that what the conspiracy theorists claim JR wants to happen? :?:

I think it's more likely that the moves were made this year because it could be done without adding to the payroll, which wouldn't have been the case in '97. JR's already shown that he doesn't care about the fan reaction.

RedPinStripes
12-01-2003, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Yeah, '83 was a real whooping. Best record in baseball at 99 and 63, and we lost 3-1 in a short best of 5 series because our shortstop got caught in a rundown on a lousy baserunning play. If Dibber holds second on that play, we're World Champions. Man, we sucked that year.

What was the result? A first round elimination. The memory is so much better because we didnt get swept!

RedPinStripes
12-01-2003, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Neither. I'm saying it because you don't know who owns the parking lots.

Jerry owns 4 of them. I think that's a lot of land.

RedPinStripes
12-01-2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Blueprint1
Well, because you seem to be getting very bent out of shape because JR might make money off one of his investments. Calm down

I get irritated because they always cry broke. And if he does build on those lots, I dont have a problem with it as long as there is some parking for the games and the land is used to attract fans instead of building condos or a best buy on.

CubKilla
12-01-2003, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Yeah, '83 was a real whooping. Best record in baseball at 99 and 63, and we lost 3-1 in a short best of 5 series because our shortstop got caught in a rundown on a lousy baserunning play. If Dibber holds second on that play, we're World Champions. Man, we sucked that year.

Disect the '83 AL Championship Series anyway you want. Losing 3-1 in a best of 5 is getting your *** handed to ya.

If it wasn't for Bartman, Prior's meltdown, Gonzalez's error, Farnsworth's Game 6 ineffectiveness, and Kerry Wood's choke in Game 7, the Cubs would be World Champions . See how stupid that sounds?

TornLabrum
12-01-2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Folks:

A few points. (Interesting discussion by the way...)

In 1984 Fisk tore an abdominal muscle sliding into home plate and missed a great deal of time. When he came back he still wasn't right. In 1985 he obviously was and everyone saw the results.

I simply posted that list from a column that I did back in 2001 because it was Voodoo who brought up the point that the Sox have acquired players some years for the stretch run but then never keep them. Obviously the jury is still out on the four pick up's in 2003 but of the previous list only Koosman, Cruz, Baines and Castillo were with the club the following season.

I also recall a direct quote from Fisk in the PBS special "The Trouble With Baseball" which aired on April 4, 1993. I'm paraphrasing the quote but if needed can play the tape and post the direct comment. Fisk was making the point that Reinsdorf makes his most money when the Sox are in contention but don't actually win anything, because then JR doesn't have to pay for raises and up the team payroll while still reaping the benefit of spiked attendence and fan interest.

One final point. In looking at the whole history of JR (and I'm doing that now for a long interactive piece on him for the web site which will come out in a few months) it's important to remember that in the first three seasons that he was owner the Sox brought in two very good, expensive players each year. In 81 it was Fisk and Luzinski. In 82 Paciorek and Kemp and in 83 Cruz and Bannister.

Something happen to Reinsdorf after the 83 season. I'm still trying to find out what it was but suddenly the desire to upgrade talent stopped. It was too early for collusion which didn't start until after the 85 season, but something stopped the ride and changed his philosophy greatly.

Lip

Lip,

Good insights. As for what happened to Reinsdorf after '83 I have two possible ideas:

1) Peter Uebberoth's collusion disaster a few years later, which Reinsdorf bought into wholeheartedly, or

2) Julio Cruz's contract with all those deferred payments.

Brian26
12-01-2003, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Disect the '83 AL Championship Series anyway you want. Losing 3-1 in a best of 5 is getting your *** handed to ya.

If it wasn't for Bartman, Prior's meltdown, Gonzalez's error, Farnsworth's Game 6 ineffectiveness, and Kerry Wood's choke in Game 7, the Cubs would be World Champions . See how stupid that sounds?

It sounds stupid because the Yankees would have destroyed the Scrubs in the Series. In 1983, we would have owned the Phillies.

I don't consider losing a 3-1 series as getting my ass handed to me. Game 4 could have gone either way, and Hoyt would have won Game 5. It wasn't an ass-kicking. The Orioles had ladyluck on their side and squeaked it out.

TornLabrum
12-01-2003, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
I'm not defending giving up, but the '97 team was playing way below expectations. Not too say things couldn't be turned around, but they didn't show much fire all year.Bob

Exactly how long was Robin back from that horrible injury before Schueler let Baines go (so much for that strong middle of the lineup) and then the White Flag trade? I believe the total elapsed time was two weeks or less.

Second, that JR quote was taken out of context. Th Sun-Times conveniently forgot to print the first part of it whicfh was "The way the team is playing now...."

By saying it that way he was right. At the time he said it (before the trade actualyl happened) the team was playing below expectations.

The expectations were that the middle of the lineup would include Thomas, Baines, Belle, and Ventura. I don't think they included Chris Snopek in the equation.

Meanwhile in 2003 when JR could have thrown in the towel he kept the team together and added two players.

But not the fifth starter they really needed.

He could have traded guys like Colon, Gordon, and Loiaza and maybe gotten some talent to fill the many holes in the '04 team, but he stuck with an underachieving team and tried to make something out of it.

And look where it got him.

:reinsy

"You can bet I'll never do anything that stupid again!"

PaleHoseGeorge
12-01-2003, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Lip,

Good insights. As for what happened to Reinsdorf after '83 I have two possible ideas:

1) Peter Uebberoth's collusion disaster a few years later, which Reinsdorf bought into wholeheartedly, or

2) Julio Cruz's contract with all those deferred payments.

Those are very plausible. The third theory revolves around the tax benefits Reinsdorf got when he bought the team in 1981. The IRS (used to) allow a new owner to assign some ungodly percentage of his purchase price to the ballplayers' contracts, then amortize the value of those contracts over 4-5 years. Those tax benefits all melt away after 5 years. That's one reason why so many teams change ownership every 4-5 years, oftentimes one member of a syndicate "buying" his partner out.

Instead of selling to his partners, where does Jerry make up the lost tax benefits? Squeeze, squeeze, squeeze.

:reinsy
"You can never have enough pitching, so why bother."

Brian26
12-01-2003, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
What was the result? A first round elimination. The memory is so much better because we didnt get swept!

Man you're depressing. By your logic, every life is insignificant because it ends in death. '83 was a helluva a year. Lighten up.

I still don't understand why you're calling '83 a first-round elimination when there was only one best-of-five series before the World Series. You're calling the World Series round 2 of the playoffs? That's gay.

RedPinStripes
12-01-2003, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Man you're depressing. By your logic, every life is insignificant because it ends in death. '83 was a helluva a year. Lighten up.

I still don't understand why you're calling '83 a first-round elimination when there was only one best-of-five series before the World Series. You're calling the World Series round 2 of the playoffs? That's gay.

"That's gay"?

Nice choice of words. I enjoyed 83 and the 83 team is one of my favorite teams. I didnt start feeling like this until i watched this team choke for the third time and do nothing the year after. Now 94 could have been different, but we'll never know.

And I'm not "depressing" I'm just sick of watching everyone else win the world series.

gosox41
12-01-2003, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Exactly how long was Robin back from that horrible injury before Schueler let Baines go (so much for that strong middle of the lineup) and then the White Flag trade? I believe the total elapsed time was two weeks or less.



The expectations were that the middle of the lineup would include Thomas, Baines, Belle, and Ventura. I don't think they included Chris Snopek in the equation.



But not the fifth starter they really needed.



And look where it got him.


IMHO, Robin Ventura was not the difference between an 83 win team and a 93 win team. Epectations were what they were, but when Ventura got hurt things did change like it or not.

As for the 5th starter comment, it would have been nice to ge one but that's not what lost it for this team.

Obviously you can find a hole on any team unless you have the top 5 starters, the top 5 relievers, the top everyday player at each position with the second best guys in all of the major legaues to back them up. So based on that if JR would have gotten Ponson, and the IF the Sox still didn't win you would have found something else to complain about JR with while giving him more of your hard earned money.

Bob

Bob

PaulDrake
12-01-2003, 08:36 PM
I live in hope that someday the Sox will hire Jon Miller to do play-by-play Jon Miller is a cure for insomnia. Harry and Jimmy were the best the Sox ever had and I've heard lots of Sox announcers. I can still hear the sonorous tones of "the Commander" Bob Elson in my head.

TornLabrum
12-01-2003, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
[B]As for the 5th starter comment, it would have been nice to ge one but that's not what lost it for this team

No? What was the record of the fifth starters? Before you look it up, it was 4-11. I think not having a fifth starter killed this club.

Obviously you can find a hole on any team unless you have the top 5 starters, the top 5 relievers, the top everyday player at each position with the second best guys in all of the major legaues to back them up. So based on that if JR would have gotten Ponson, and the IF the Sox still didn't win you would have found something else to complain about JR with while giving him more of your hard earned money.

4-11 isn't a hole. It's the Grand Canyon.

RedPinStripes
12-01-2003, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum

4-11 isn't a hole. It's the Grand Canyon.

Heheh ......Quote of the week there. :)

Brian26
12-01-2003, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
No? What was the record of the fifth starters? Before you look it up, it was 4-11. I think not having a fifth starter killed this club.

Yeah, but come on, Torn. What team in the majors DID have an above .500 5th starter? (I'll be shocked if any team did. I'll be even more shocked if anyone actually can find that statistic :smile: ). The Sox lost because the pop-up express from the 2000 playoffs returned early for the September series in Minnesota.

Brian26
12-01-2003, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by PaulDrake
Jon Miller is a cure for insomnia.

Agreed. In addition, he's become a generic national announcer in the mold of Gary Thorne and the rest of them. Give me a knowledgable homer like Hawk any day of the week.

WinningUgly!
12-01-2003, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
No? What was the record of the fifth starters? Before you look it up, it was 4-11. I think not having a fifth starter killed this club.

4-11 isn't a hole. It's the Grand Canyon.

I think the Colon/Buehrle/Garland combined record of 41-40 did more to kill the 2003 White Sox.

I keep seeing the 4-11 record for the 5th starters posted, but have yet to see the Sox actual record in these games. Before you look it up, it was 12-13. :D:

Dates & results of the "5th Starter" starts not included in the 4-11 record...
April 6 - Stewart started, gave up 2 ER in 6 2/3, no decision. Marte wins in relief.
May 14 - Wright started, gave up 1 ER in 6 1/3, no decision. Gordon wins in relief.
May 25 - Wright started, gave up 3 ER in 7, no decision. Glover wins in relief.
June 5 - Wright started, gave up 2 ER in 6, no decision. Koch wins in relief.
June 14 - Wright started, gave up 4 ER in 5 1/3, no decision. Gordon wins in relief.
June 19 - Wright started, gave up 2 ER in 6, no decision. Koch loses in relief.
June 27 - Wright started, gave up 1 ER in 6 1/3, no decision. Koch wins in relief.
July 7 - Wright started, gave up 4 ER in 4, no decision. Koch wins in relief.
August 17 - Cotts started, gave up 4 ER in 5 2/3, no decision. Marte loses in relief.
September 7 - Wright started, gave up 2 ER in 5, no decision. Schoeneweis wins in relief.

More often than not, our 5th starter put us in a position to win.

Lip Man 1
12-02-2003, 12:31 AM
In my opinion the record of the team in game's the 5th starters started is misleading.

How many games were the 5th starters shelled early and the bullpen forced to pick up the slack? and how might that have effected them in the next few days?

While both sides make some valid points the irony of the entire situation is that there were qualified serviceable back end starters available (i.e. Suppan, Rogers) for very reasonable prices and the Sox either couldn't or wouldn't acquire them.

For what I consider a very reasonable price this wouldn't have been an issue in the first place.

Lip

RichH55
12-02-2003, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
In my opinion the record of the team in game's the 5th starters started is misleading.

How many games were the 5th starters shelled early and the bullpen forced to pick up the slack? and how might that have effected them in the next few days?

While both sides make some valid points the irony of the entire situation is that there were qualified serviceable back end starters available (i.e. Suppan, Rogers) for very reasonable prices and the Sox either couldn't or wouldn't acquire them.

For what I consider a very reasonable price this wouldn't have been an issue in the first place.

Lip


Talking out of both sides of your mouth LIP!!!!!

I'm calling you on this one

A) You wanted to trade Carlos Lee for Rick Helling....How many games/years off my life would that have cost us?

B) and More importantly: You totally dismiss the 12-13 stat, but you absolutely love to bring up Kenny Rogers win-loss record as if he were Pedro out there to get the Twins those wins


C) And no offense, but what you consider a reasonable salary(not that I'm actually disagreeing with those particular players)...but if you had your druthers, we would spend more than the Yankees just to spend more than the Yankees:) (And yes the last point was hyperbole)

gosox41
12-02-2003, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by RichH55
Talking out of both sides of your mouth LIP!!!!!

I'm calling you on this one

A) You wanted to trade Carlos Lee for Rick Helling....How many games/years off my life would that have cost us?

B) and More importantly: You totally dismiss the 12-13 stat, but you absolutely love to bring up Kenny Rogers win-loss record as if he were Pedro out there to get the Twins those wins


C) And no offense, but what you consider a reasonable salary(not that I'm actually disagreeing with those particular players)...but if you had your druthers, we would spend more than the Yankees just to spend more than the Yankees:) (And yes the last point was hyperbole)

I forgot about him wnting to dump Lee for Helling. How many games would that have cost the Sox? Would that have meant that we would have been hearing cries for the Sox to get an everydy left fielder to hit because JR is still too cheap. There's always going to be complaining.

Bob

maurice
12-02-2003, 12:51 PM
It's pretty clear that inconsistent offense (particularly during the first half of the season) is what caused the Sox to fall short in 2003. Rank out of 14 AL teams:

Runs scored - 8th
Runs before ASG - 12th

Total ERA - 4th
Starters' ERA - 4th

Total Errors - 3rd
Total FP - 4th

Pitching might be the Sox downfall in 2004, but it was quite good in 2003.

Lip Man 1
12-02-2003, 12:55 PM
Folks:

I know that I pushed for Helling (who did an outstanding job after being acquired by Florida), Rogers and Suppan. I honestly don't remember advocating Helling for Lee but it's possible. I do remember that I pushed Lee for Garcia and Rhodes.

No one expected him to progress last year the way he did. (Of course the Sox are probably going to have to trade him anyway)

As far as the 13-12 record comment, we are talking about back end of the rotation guys here. I brought that up with pitchers like Garland and Wright whom the Sox and some fans are thinking will be great pitchers. You can't win championships with top end pitchers who go 13-12 every year. Now if Garland and Wright are your # 4 and 5 guys that's a different story and I'd take that kind of record in that slot in the rotation.

and with respect I think we're missing the big picture... for a reasonable price the 5th starter position wouldn't have been a concern (issue) that it turned out to be in 2003. The Sox gambled and lost in that regard and in my opinion it had a serious effect on the way the season played out.

Lip

Lip Man 1
12-02-2003, 12:59 PM
GoSox 41 says:

There's always going to be complaining.

Until a championship is won Bob, I think complaining is entirely reasonable given the history of this franchise.

Or putting the situation another way there will always be people here at WSI who constantly complain about the complainers and feel they should just stop being a fan.

Lip

gosox41
12-02-2003, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Folks:

I know that I pushed for Helling (who did an outstanding job after being acquired by Florida), Rogers and Suppan. I honestly don't remember advocating Helling for Lee but it's possible. I do remember that I pushed Lee for Garcia and Rhodes.

No one expected him to progress last year the way he did. (Of course the Sox are probably going to have to trade him anyway)

As far as the 13-12 record comment, we are talking about back end of the rotation guys here. I brought that up with pitchers like Garland and Wright whom the Sox and some fans are thinking will be great pitchers. You can't win championships with top end pitchers who go 13-12 every year. Now if Garland and Wright are your # 4 and 5 guys that's a different story and I'd take that kind of record in that slot in the rotation.

and with respect I think we're missing the big picture... for a reasonable price the 5th starter position wouldn't have been a concern (issue) that it turned out to be in 2003. The Sox gambled and lost in that regard and in my opinion it had a serious effect on the way the season played out.

Lip

Not as serious an efect as the offense not perfoming anywhere near expectations in the first half of the year.

As for top of the rotation guys, you advocate signing Colon yet he was only 2 game above .500 for the season. And based on your logic you think he's worth $12 mill per?

Bob

gosox41
12-02-2003, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
GoSox 41 says:

There's always going to be complaining.

Until a championship is won Bob, I think complaining is entirely reasonable given the history of this franchise.

Or putting the situation another way there will always be people here at WSI who constantly complain about the complainers and feel they should just stop being a fan.

Lip

You're right it's your right to complain. But as lojng as you (or others who feed the JR monster) continue to support him you might as well have a conversation with the wall because actions always speak louder then words. Giving JR money and hating him are fine with him. Whether you see the talent on the field as seperate or not, according to most, JR is making a ton of money and the ironic part is that the people who hate him are the one's who have no problem suposedly making him richer. It's not the most effective way for your complaining to have any effect.

Bob

TornLabrum
12-02-2003, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by maurice
It's pretty clear that inconsistent offense (particularly during the first half of the season) is what caused the Sox to fall short in 2003. Rank out of 14 AL teams:

Runs scored - 8th
Runs before ASG - 12th

Total ERA - 4th
Starters' ERA - 4th

Total Errors - 3rd
Total FP - 4th

Pitching might be the Sox downfall in 2004, but it was quite good in 2003.

Except for the fifth starter and closer positions.

Lip Man 1
12-02-2003, 09:34 PM
GoSox:

Two points...

One Colon pitched over 240 innings last season with nine complete games. That makes him a top end guy regardless of won / loss record. If the Sox bullpen wasn't so lousy he easily could have won at least three more games.

Two, as you posted elsewhere 'listening is a skill.' Obviously you make the same mistake others do. I posted previously that I live in Idaho. I haven't physically been to a Sox game in years. I watch the Sox on WGN-TV and the regional sports channels when the blackout time has expired. I am not giving money to Uncle Jerry.

But you bring up an interesting conundrum. Fans here at WSI in years past have advocated boycotting the Sox and doing exactly what you are suggesting, not to go to games, pay parking or pay concession money. Just watch or listen on TV / radio. They have been ripped for not being "true" fans.

So my question is are you advocating unbridled loyalty to the club? Taking everything that's said or done without thought or dissent regardless if the Sox win 100 games or lose 100 games?

To me absolute loyalty is dangerous...regardless if that involves religion, the government or any business including a sports team that has used city and state money in the past to support it.

Lip

kempsted
12-02-2003, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
In my opinion the record of the team in game's the 5th starters started is misleading.

How many games were the 5th starters shelled early and the bullpen forced to pick up the slack? and how might that have effected them in the next few days?

While both sides make some valid points the irony of the entire situation is that there were qualified serviceable back end starters available (i.e. Suppan, Rogers) for very reasonable prices and the Sox either couldn't or wouldn't acquire them.

For what I consider a very reasonable price this wouldn't have been an issue in the first place.

Lip
Hmmm rather than speculate why don't you read the post or look it up. There were many ND games for the number 5 where they were ahead when they went out and the bullpen blew it only to win the game. We actually did get above average pitching from the number 5 slot. Unfortunately Lip like so many are mislead by one of baseball's most useless stats - Won loss for a pitcher.

As to Suppan just look at how well he did for Boston when he came over ....

gosox41
12-03-2003, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
GoSox:

Two points...

One Colon pitched over 240 innings last season with nine complete games. That makes him a top end guy regardless of won / loss record. If the Sox bullpen wasn't so lousy he easily could have won at least three more games.

Two, as you posted elsewhere 'listening is a skill.' Obviously you make the same mistake others do. I posted previously that I live in Idaho. I haven't physically been to a Sox game in years. I watch the Sox on WGN-TV and the regional sports channels when the blackout time has expired. I am not giving money to Uncle Jerry.

But you bring up an interesting conundrum. Fans here at WSI in years past have advocated boycotting the Sox and doing exactly what you are suggesting, not to go to games, pay parking or pay concession money. Just watch or listen on TV / radio. They have been ripped for not being "true" fans.

So my question is are you advocating unbridled loyalty to the club? Taking everything that's said or done without thought or dissent regardless if the Sox win 100 games or lose 100 games?

To me absolute loyalty is dangerous...regardless if that involves religion, the government or any business including a sports team that has used city and state money in the past to support it.

Lip

I'm not advocating absolute loyalty. But I think the biggest way a consumer can strike back is through the pocket book. I had a bad experience with a Ford salesman years ago. Now I won't even walk in to a Ford dealer because they pissed me off. And if people ask me my opinions about Ford, I tell them what I really think hoping it discourages them from dealing with an idiotic salesman like I did.

Now I know a baseball team is more emotional then a car. But one way to send JR a clear message is by not supporting him. If one believes they are supporting an inferior product while the head of the company is making a ton of money (I don't necessarily believe this, but a lot here do) then why continue to line his pockets?

It may mean the team taking a step back if no one shows up, but they've taken enough steps back under the JR era. This last step would hurt him where it hurts most, the wallet. I don't think he cares what anyone thinks of him, but I do think he cares if he at least can't turn a small profit (others think a large profit) and maybe this will send him a message.

At the very least it'll make a lot of people a lot less frustrated. Look at all the time being spend everyday spewing off on their hatred of JR. Any move the Cubs make brings immediate criticism of JR. Any rumor out there brings about criticism of JR. There's a lot of time and energy spent here speaking of their dislike for one man running a baseball team. It's not like he's holding back the cure for cancer to make a ton of money.

Like I say, when it comes down to it actions speak louder then words. So for those that hate JR, don't support this team. It is being a loyal fan. But if one chooses to support this team financially they would have a ton more credibility if they didn't complain constantly about him.

Bob

Lip Man 1
12-03-2003, 11:13 AM
GoSox:

Then I assume from your post that I have cart blanche to express my feelings since I do not support Uncle Jerry financially. Although that still doesn't solve the question of why fans who proposed a "boycott," (for want of a better word) in the past at WSI were ripped for not being good fans.

Lip

maurice
12-03-2003, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by maurice
It's pretty clear that inconsistent offense (particularly during the first half of the season) is what caused the Sox to fall short in 2003. . . . Pitching might be the Sox downfall in 2004, but it was quite good in 2003.

Originally posted by TornLabrum
Except for the fifth starter and closer positions.

You're ignoring WinningUgly's post that the Sox were about .500 in games started by their #5s. I haven't run the numbers for every other major league team, but that has to be relatively good. A quick glance at some pitching stats shows that most good teams have fifth starters with ERAs more than 5. The Yankees #5 starter had a 6 ERA, and they lost more than they won when he started. Boston's #5s were a problem all season. The difference in the standings is because the Yanks and the Red Sox hit the crap out of the ball all year long. The Sox didn't turn it on until the second half.

There's no question that Koch sucked, but it looks like Sox closers (Koch in the first half and Gordon/Marte in the second half) only blew five saves all season (fewer than Rivera, Urbina, et al.).

It's all relative, but (IMHO) it's unreasonable to think that any aspect of Sox pitching hurt more than, say, the starting infield's collective OBP (just a notch above .300), or Konerko's miserable first half (.197 AVE / 5 HR / 22 RBI).

gosox41
12-03-2003, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
GoSox:

Then I assume from your post that I have cart blanche to express my feelings since I do not support Uncle Jerry financially. Although that still doesn't solve the question of why fans who proposed a "boycott," (for want of a better word) in the past at WSI were ripped for not being good fans.

Lip

You do have cart blanche based on the fact you don't financially support this team.

I'm sure JR likes knowing the fact that there is a man in Idaho who spends valuable time everyday ripping on him.

If you lived in Chicago, would you be going to any games?

Bob

Lip Man 1
12-03-2003, 08:17 PM
GoSox 41:

But remember I work in the media so I'm a lazy slob who can't find real work. That means I have a lot of time on my hands that isn't especially valuable! :)

Lip

muskrat23
12-03-2003, 11:58 PM
I'm really hoping that Neal Cotts steps up (along with Garland) but Colon is only a part of what we're needing. Besides another solid starting pitcher, we still need a center fielder, a second baseman, left handed hitters, defense, a setup man, and a closer. The Sox are trying to win the division by default again cause Minnesota is losing a bunch of players. Guess what, its not gonna happen! In another year Cleveland will be own the division till 2012

gosox41
12-04-2003, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
GoSox 41:

But remember I work in the media so I'm a lazy slob who can't find real work. That means I have a lot of time on my hands that isn't especially valuable! :)

Lip

Not everyone who work's in the media is fat. :D:

Bob

JC456
12-04-2003, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
Right, because JR doesn't care at all about winning and making the fans happy! Seriously guys, come off it. He's not a perfect owner, but it's crazy to think he doesn't want to win. You can argue that he doesn't spend enough, or that he has the wrong people, but if you don't think he really wants to make Sox fans happy, you're just not paying attention.

You say he wants to win. Then show me the stellar moves he's made that has moved this franchise closer to a World Series in the last 10 years. I see nothing as Sargeant Shultz once said.

He is in this for the enterntainment value not the possibility of a World Series ring. There is only one man on this earth that will change this fans opinion about ole JR and that is JR himself. You busting others on message boards isn't going to change those fans opinions, just like was stated about fans changing owners moves. You can't change either.

So the point is to just have the fans shut up and accept the crapola on the field. That ain't ever gonna happen here or at any other message board. :gulp:

JC456
12-04-2003, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
I'm not advocating absolute loyalty. But I think the biggest way a consumer can strike back is through the pocket book. I had a bad experience with a Ford salesman years ago. Now I won't even walk in to a Ford dealer because they pissed me off. And if people ask me my opinions about Ford, I tell them what I really think hoping it discourages them from dealing with an idiotic salesman like I did.

Now I know a baseball team is more emotional then a car. But one way to send JR a clear message is by not supporting him. If one believes they are supporting an inferior product while the head of the company is making a ton of money (I don't necessarily believe this, but a lot here do) then why continue to line his pockets?

It may mean the team taking a step back if no one shows up, but they've taken enough steps back under the JR era. This last step would hurt him where it hurts most, the wallet. I don't think he cares what anyone thinks of him, but I do think he cares if he at least can't turn a small profit (others think a large profit) and maybe this will send him a message.

At the very least it'll make a lot of people a lot less frustrated. Look at all the time being spend everyday spewing off on their hatred of JR. Any move the Cubs make brings immediate criticism of JR. Any rumor out there brings about criticism of JR. There's a lot of time and energy spent here speaking of their dislike for one man running a baseball team. It's not like he's holding back the cure for cancer to make a ton of money.

Like I say, when it comes down to it actions speak louder then words. So for those that hate JR, don't support this team. It is being a loyal fan. But if one chooses to support this team financially they would have a ton more credibility if they didn't complain constantly about him.

Bob

The only thing that happens when fans don't support a team is: less talented players, more losing, and eventually losing the team to another city. It is time for the Sox fans to quit crying with their pocket books, show up to the games support the players, not the owner. Once the stadium is filled regularly, more talent will find it's way onto our field. Staying home does not promote better talent on the field. All you have to do is watch the teams that have less than 2 million fans a year. They will start the year with very lousy talent, be out of the race at the half way point, then trade any valuable players and set up for the next year disaster. That's what we keep getting because Sox fans think they can make a difference by not going to games.

Shame on you who call yourself a fan and don't go to games. You can make statements at the game if you need to make statements. Booing is a healthy way to draw attention positively. Not showing up only demonstrates stupidity. :)

FanOf14
12-04-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by JC456
All you have to do is watch the teams that have less than 2 million fans a year.

Didn't the Marlins have about that in attendance? :?:

Lip Man 1
12-04-2003, 01:22 PM
JC 456 says:

Once the stadium is filled regularly, more talent will find it's way onto our field.

JC the problem with your statement is that right or wrong, a large number of Sox fans DO NOT trust Uncle Jerry to follow through on your premise.

Like I said perception is everything and while there is evidence to suggest that Uncle Jerry does want to win, he wants to do it his way

That way has had mixed results at best over the past 22 years. Couple the final results with a series of (again) perceived media and PR blunders over twenty years and I think you can understand the hesitency towards doing what you advocate.

I'm not saying its fair or right but that seems to be the way it is. I agree with the members of the Chicago media who have been interviewed by WSI when they have said that the only thing that will change the fortunes of this franchise long term is new ownership.

Lip

Iwritecode
12-04-2003, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by JC456
The only thing that happens when fans don't support a team is: less talented players, more losing, and eventually losing the team to another city. It is time for the Sox fans to quit crying with their pocket books, show up to the games support the players, not the owner. Once the stadium is filled regularly, more talent will find it's way onto our field. Staying home does not promote better talent on the field. All you have to do is watch the teams that have less than 2 million fans a year. They will start the year with very lousy talent, be out of the race at the half way point, then trade any valuable players and set up for the next year disaster. That's what we keep getting because Sox fans think they can make a difference by not going to games.

Shame on you who call yourself a fan and don't go to games. You can make statements at the game if you need to make statements. Booing is a healthy way to draw attention positively. Not showing up only demonstrates stupidity. :)

Do you actually think that if Sox fans started showing up more at games it would make a difference? Last year is a great example of this. The attendance was IIRC, over 2 million and was the 8th? largest in Sox history? JR had to pay rent for the stadium for the first time in years.

So, what are being rewarded with? A payroll of under 60 million dollars and talks of losing Colon and Magglio!!!

Boy, it's sure a good thing we showed up in droves last year.

The fact is, we aren't Cubs fans. We need a reason to show up to the park first. Good team = better attendance. Not the other way around...

FanOf14
12-04-2003, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Do you actually think that if Sox fans started showing up more at games it would make a difference? Last year is a great example of this. The attendance was IIRC, over 2 million and was the 8th? largest in Sox history? JR had to pay rent for the stadium for the first time in years.

So, what are being rewarded with? A payroll of under 60 million dollars and talks of losing Colon and Magglio!!!


Do forget the other present - higher ticket prices!!!

anewman35
12-04-2003, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Do you actually think that if Sox fans started showing up more at games it would make a difference? Last year is a great example of this. The attendance was IIRC, over 2 million and was the 8th? largest in Sox history? JR had to pay rent for the stadium for the first time in years.

So, what are being rewarded with? A payroll of under 60 million dollars and talks of losing Colon and Magglio!!!


It didn't quite make 2 million. Anyway, 60 million is an increase from last year, right? So you can't act like he's spending less or whatever. It's not increasing as much as you'd like, sure, but he did increase it. Who are you to decide how much he should increase it by? Do you know how much money he made last year?

anewman35
12-04-2003, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by FanOf14
Do forget the other present - higher ticket prices!!!

In many cases, it appears that the same seats will be cheaper this year than they were last year. Try again.

FanOf14
12-04-2003, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
In many cases, it appears that the same seats will be cheaper this year than they were last year. Try again.

Look Mr Reinsdorf, I am just repeating what I have seen posted on several different boards.

I just looked at the 'official' page and all they have are the season ticket prices. Going by the fact that individual tickets have to be at least a $1 more, I don't see much, if any decrease. I guess no one will know for certain until those prices are released.

anewman35
12-04-2003, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by FanOf14
Look Mr Reinsdorf, I am just repeating what I have seen posted on several different boards.

Man, I wish I was Jerry Reinsdorf. I could use the money.

It doesn't do anybody any good to post various rumors as fact, that's how rumors spread.

Look here (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/ticketing/cws_seating_pricing.jsp) . Assuming that regular prices will be $2 or $3 more than this (and if that's not a good assumption, let me know, I've never had season tickets), the upper deck for weekday games is (at most) $18, for the very best seats. The upper reserve would be (at most) $12, as opposed to last year's $14, but this year's are even better, since they potentially could be seats in the first few rows. In fact, assuming $3 than the split cost, I don't think any tickets for weekday games (over 50% of the season) go up, and as I said above, a significant amount go down. For weekend games, yes, some tickets do go up. My question is, is it really fair for everybody to blast the Sox for some tickets going up when a very large number go down? The Sox have made the upper deck better and cheaper, which will really help with people on a budget. That's a good move.

anewman35
12-04-2003, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by FanOf14
I just looked at the 'official' page and all they have are the season ticket prices. Going by the fact that individual tickets have to be at least a $1 more, I don't see much, if any decrease. I guess no one will know for certain until those prices are released.

Upper Reserve tickets last year (which, if you recall, generally sucked) were $14, for all games, even wednesdays and thursdays when they sat empty. This year (unless the season ticket discount is amazingly huge), they'll be cheaper for at least half the games and (IMO) better, since they'll be much lower. The Sox deserve praise for this.

voodoochile
12-04-2003, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
Upper Reserve tickets last year (which, if you recall, generally sucked) were $14, for all games, even wednesdays and thursdays when they sat empty. This year (unless the season ticket discount is amazingly huge), they'll be cheaper for at least half the games and (IMO) better, since they'll be much lower. The Sox deserve praise for this.

UDR does NOT suck. This is just more of the negative perception, but for anyone who opens their eyes, there are some great seats up there.

Glad to hear they are coming down in price. I think that is a great move.

BTW, the available seats won't be any lower than they were last year, there just will be less higher seats. :D:

UDR on a Sox-7 package and you are between the batters circles (for busy games like the flubbies - and behind home for most regular games) no more than 17 rows up. You can call balls and strikes and it is a steal of a deal. You can even take the Monday half-price nights as part of your package and the 7th game is $1/seat. 4 seats, 7 games <$300 cost. That is just solid entertainment value, no matter how you slice it...

anewman35
12-04-2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
UDR does NOT suck. This is just more of the negative perception, but for anyone who opens their eyes, there are some great seats up there.

Glad to hear they are coming down in price. I think that is a great move.

BTW, the available seats won't be any lower than they were last year, there just will be less higher seats. :D:



Well, some were great, sure, but there were some really bad seats up there, too...

But - the seats will be lower (at least if you believe the map the Sox posted here (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/ticketing/cws_seating_pricing.jsp) . It shows that the entire upper deck (besides the infield) is now Upper Deck Reserved, and the entire infield upper deck (besides the first few rows) is Upper Deck Box. Which, as somebody else said, makes for some really great reserved seats and some pretty bad box seats.

voodoochile
12-04-2003, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
Well, some were great, sure, but there were some really bad seats up there, too...

But - the seats will be lower (at least if you believe the map the Sox posted here (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/ticketing/cws_seating_pricing.jsp) . It shows that the entire upper deck (besides the infield) is now Upper Deck Reserved, and the entire infield upper deck (besides the first few rows) is Upper Deck Box. Which, as somebody else said, makes for some really great reserved seats and some pretty bad box seats.

I did not know that. Thanks. That is actually great news. I am exceedingly impressed with this decision. I will still be able to get resonable box seats behind home, but having those UDR seats in the first few rows just past 3rd would be WAY cool at those prices.

I stand corrected and it makes me happy...:D:

Iwritecode
12-04-2003, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
It didn't quite make 2 million. Anyway, 60 million is an increase from last year, right? So you can't act like he's spending less or whatever. It's not increasing as much as you'd like, sure, but he did increase it.

Wow, pretty soon they might actually have a payroll worthy of the large market team they actually are...

Originally posted by anewman35
Do you know how much money he made last year?

Not quite as much as he could make this year if he makes the right moves???

JC456
12-05-2003, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by FanOf14
Didn't the Marlins have about that in attendance? :?:

If they did, they had young players who actually played hard because they also had a manager who knew what he was doing.

JC456
12-05-2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Do you actually think that if Sox fans started showing up more at games it would make a difference? Last year is a great example of this. The attendance was IIRC, over 2 million and was the 8th? largest in Sox history? JR had to pay rent for the stadium for the first time in years.

So, what are being rewarded with? A payroll of under 60 million dollars and talks of losing Colon and Magglio!!!

Boy, it's sure a good thing we showed up in droves last year.

The fact is, we aren't Cubs fans. We need a reason to show up to the park first. Good team = better attendance. Not the other way around...


Well I think the Sox made great moves going into the final month adding the players they did. Why did that happen? Because seats were getting filled. Period!! Your position is merely one of a losing perspective. I don't know of any team whose fan base has dwindled and performance improved, nor the talent. Florida, in my opinion was merely lucky with the young players last year, and good for them. They did come through, and yes that could be a good argument on the other side of this. Look at the Cubs though; most Sox fans said they were stupid for continuing to fill the seats when they weren't winning. Well boys, they got to the second round and were playing to make the World Series last year. Something worked eh?

Boycotting the Sox team punishes the players not the owner. That is where these Sox fans philosophy fails.

I can just hear JR in a meeting: Gentlemen, no one is coming to the park, we have to spend more before they come. Reply, Well we did go to the Playoffs in 2000 and no one came. Reply back: You're right, I don't think the Sox fans care about the team, I won't spend the money until they do come back.

Yeah a winner for the fans who didn't show!!! :o:

Iwritecode
12-05-2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by JC456
I don't know of any team whose fan base has dwindled and performance improved, nor the talent.

Try the Twins... Remember the team that was being looked at for contraction because their attendance wasn't great and they hadn't done more that finish 3rd or 4th for a few years? All of a sudden they've won the divsion 2 of the past 3 years. I'm sure they could add payroll if they wanted to but their owner is almost a clone of JR.

It really shouldn't be difficult to take a team that has consistenly finished in 2nd place for years and add the right combination of players to push them into first. The only problem is that unless you have a pretty good farm system, it takes money.

Reverse your question around. When is the last time you saw a team where the talent and performance dwindled and the attendance imporved???

Iwritecode
12-05-2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by JC456
I can just hear JR in a meeting: Gentlemen, no one is coming to the park, we have to spend more before they come. Reply, Well we did go to the Playoffs in 2000 and no one came. Reply back: You're right, I don't think the Sox fans care about the team, I won't spend the money until they do come back.

Yeah a winner for the fans who didn't show!!! :o:

Actually, they should be figuring out what they can do to fix the problem of the fans not showing up. Not just stuff their hands in their pockets and say "We aren't going to do anything because nobody shows up to watch the team."

voodoochile
12-05-2003, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Actually, they should be figuring out what they can do to fix the problem of the fans not showing up. Not just stuff their hands in their pockets and say "We aren't going to do anything because nobody shows up to watch the team."

:gallas
"Okay... Okay... I'll think of something new... How about bring your cat to the ballpark day. I think this is a great idea. Cat's are such social creatures and it will be like a big love fest in the bleachers when all those big toms get together. We can give the owners baseballs for their cat's to play fetch with and let them parade around the infield. We'll mix it up by having a dog chasing frisbees on the same day. It will be a blast."

AP Newswire

Monday, August 10th.

CATFIGHT!
Cat Day Goes Horribly Horribly Wrong as USCF

Chicago - It started out ugly and then it got worse yesterday at US Cellular Field on Sunday. What started out as an innocent promotion ended up causing the cancelation and forfeit of a regular season baseball game for only the second time in baseball history and what a surprise, it happened to the White Sox... Again...

On a bright sunshiney day, over 1000 people decided to bring their cat to the ballpark yesterday and at the beginning it looked like a decent idea. There were a few scuffles between large males, but for the most part the cats were to terrified to do much more than cling to their owners. Then came the walk around the infield. The dog that had been playing frisbee catch for the entertainment of the fans took one look at the cats and went crazy. "Whipper" took off after the owners and several cats went nuts, brutally mauling their handelers before taking off for parts unknown. This led to a chain reaction as owner after owner was forced to drop their now crazed cats. Pretty soon their were cats all over the place. Fights were widespread and groundskeepers quickly gave up trying to seperate the spitting clawing bundles of fur. Several of the cats dug up the warning track and left behind their "calling cards". As all of this was happening a flash Chicago-style thunderstorm let loose dropping 3/4" of water on the field in 20 minutes. The cats all took off for shelter, which in this case, meant the dugouts. Players who had been enjoying the show, took off running, but several of them received cuts for trying to prevent the cats from making it into the locker rooms. That too proved futile and pretty soon there were several hundred cats swarming the dugouts and back of the house. Several even made it into the offices and it looks like it might be days before the hidden ones are all rooted out.

The visiting Angels refused to take the field until it was made safe. The Groundskeepers and security people refused to make any attempt to clear the field. "You do it," said head of USCF security, Ron Brown. "I'm allergic to cats, and even if I wasn't, there is no way I am going to mess with them. Some of those males are more like medium sized dogs, but they have claws and aren't afraid to use them. I've already got one guy getting stiches in the trainers room. Gallas made this mess, he can come clean it up."

Several scuffles broke out between cat owners who were clearly distraut over their missing felines. Some owners blamed other owners for allowing the situation to get out of hand. 3 people were treated for bruises and scrapes and one lady ended up with a broken arm when she got shoved aside during an altercation.

The umpires convened after the rain stopped and examined the field and the clubhouses - from a distance. The fact that the cats couldn't be moved was the deciding factor and it was ruled that since the Sox were at fault they would forfeit the game.

Afterwards an obviously subdued Rob Gallas told the press that, "They're just little cats? Who would have thought they could cause so much havoc?" Jerry Reinsdorf could not be reached for comment.

JC456
12-05-2003, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Actually, they should be figuring out what they can do to fix the problem of the fans not showing up. Not just stuff their hands in their pockets and say "We aren't going to do anything because nobody shows up to watch the team."

Why can't White Sox fans just show up to root for their team. Why is the owner the person they think they're hurting. They're hurting all other Sox fans. I can't figure out how no one else can see this. We all suffer with dwindling players and crowds. No one wins. How is that successful?

I also thought the Sox had some pretty cheap seats on Mondays and Tuesdays all year. Yet the park didn't fill.

I am disappointed in the Sox fan base, thinking boycotting the park will change the pattern of losing. Well were on year 10 of this boycott and nothing has changed. Maybe it just doesn't work.

Any of you ever think about that? Maybe these people need to figure out another method to force JR into bringing in better players. Mine is to SHOW UP!!!!! Bitch all you want at the game as loud as you want, watching language of course.

idseer
12-05-2003, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
[B
Afterwards an obviously subdued Rob Gallas told the press that, "They're just little cats? Who would have thought they could cause so much havoc?" Jerry Reinsdorf could not be reached for comment. [/B]



that SO reminds me of the wkrp episode where the station manager decided to throw live turkeys out of an airplane on thanksgiving.

...." who knew turkeys couldn't fly???" ....

:D: :D: :D: :D: :D:

TornLabrum
12-05-2003, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Try the Twins... Remember the team that was being looked at for contraction because their attendance wasn't great and they hadn't done more that finish 3rd or 4th for a few years? All of a sudden they've won the divsion 2 of the past 3 years. I'm sure they could add payroll if they wanted to but their owner is almost a clone of JR.

It really shouldn't be difficult to take a team that has consistenly finished in 2nd place for years and add the right combination of players to push them into first. The only problem is that unless you have a pretty good farm system, it takes money.

Reverse your question around. When is the last time you saw a team where the talent and performance dwindled and the attendance imporved???

Other than the Cubs?

TornLabrum
12-05-2003, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by idseer
that SO reminds me of the wkrp episode where the station manager decided to throw live turkeys out of an airplane on thanksgiving.

...." who knew turkeys couldn't fly???" ....

:D: :D: :D: :D: :D:

I have to correct you just because I think the real punchline is so much funnier: "As God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."

idseer
12-05-2003, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
I have to correct you just because I think the real punchline is so much funnier: "As God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."


thanks! :smile:

i knew it was something like that.