PDA

View Full Version : Daily Herald Columnists on a Roll


Chili-Sox
01-27-2004, 01:05 PM
http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/col_rozner.asp?intid=38013174

Iwritecode
01-27-2004, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Chili-Sox
http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/col_rozner.asp?intid=38013174

Felt like I was reading this message board.

Maybe our point is finally getting across to some people?

PaleHoseGeorge
01-27-2004, 01:23 PM
Rozner's column helps explain why having an owner like Donald Trump would be the best thing that could happen to the Sox. Jerry Reinsdorf's organization fails and all he and the rest of his front office can do is blame their paying customers. It's not their fault they failed, so obviously it is the fans' fault. What a gulag it must be working inside 35th & Shields... like they're fooling anyone anymore...

Trump is not the type to let the word "loser" be attached to his name. Reinsdorf is perfectly content to be a loser because he has fooled himself into thinking he has found a scapegoat besides himself. Rozner puts the torch to that notion.

Rozner puts the torch to Reinsdorf's delusion in bold letters distributed to a few hundred-thousand Chicago homes. Good for him.

voodoochile
01-27-2004, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Rozner's column helps explain why having an owner like Donald Trump would be the best thing that could happen to the Sox. Jerry Reinsdorf's organization fails and all he and the rest of his front office can do is blame their paying customers. It's not their fault they failed, so obviously it is the fans' fault. What a gulag it must be working inside 35th & Shields... like they're fooling anyone anymore...

Trump is not the type to let the word "loser" be attached to his name. Reinsdorf is perfectly content to be a loser because he has fooled himself into thinking he has found a scapegoat besides himself. Rozner puts the torch to that notion.

Rozner puts the torch to Reinsdorf's delusion in bold letters distributed to a few hundred-thousand Chicago homes. Good for him.

If WSI succeeds in nothing else other than pointing out the hypocrisy and shoddy business practices of the Sox ownership group and brings to the mainstream as appears to be happening, then I can die a happy man.

Not that I'm planning on dying anytime soon. I plan to out live Reinsy and hope that either he doesn't leave the team to his son or that marketing genius merely skipped Jerry's generation...

Hangar18
01-27-2004, 01:39 PM
LET THE ASSAULT BEGIN. We can sit on our hands and HOPE
things change, or we can Use The Media (kind of how that inept team up north did) To Our Advantage. Cheers and Kudos to the Daily Herald For SPEAKING OUT, and Printing the Truth.
How a Business could get away With This Backward Thinking for So Many Years is Laughable. Blame Immediately falls to the SOX, but Blame also needs to be Aimed at the MEDIA for helping to create this false sense of Security for Uncle Jerry. Hes been flying Under The Radar since 1992 (whatever year it was he helped the Cubs run Vincent out of Office). How was that possible? Because of that Lovable Franchise up north Operating an Outdoor Beer Garden every summer. Cheers
to the Daily Herald for Printing NEWS, Printing SOmething that matters. Printing the Truth. They couldve told us about how
Dusty Baker likes Blues Clubs, and how he showed up at Buddy Guys Legends and what his musical tastes are like in the OffSeason (Last weekends Trib, I swear)
But We Need Stories, Not More CubFluff

jeremyb1
01-27-2004, 02:02 PM
As I've said before I can understand desiring a higher payroll from JR, that's relatively reasonable. However, many act as though we've had a fire sale losing numerous key players to save money. This is not true. THE WHITE SOX HAVE NOT CUT PAYROLL FROM LAST SEASON. I'm not saying we reached this point, but clearly at some point a team does not have money to resign all of its free agents as they ask for higher salaries. We didn't have the money to increase payroll to 140 million if that's what was required to keep Colon, Everett, Sullivan, and Gordon, correct? Did we have 85 million? Maybe but I don't think its a given that any team has the ability to raise payroll to any level just to keep its club together.

Hangar18
01-27-2004, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
As I've said before I can understand desiring a higher payroll from JR, that's relatively reasonable. However, many act as though we've had a fire sale losing numerous key players to save money. This is not true. THE WHITE SOX HAVE NOT CUT PAYROLL FROM LAST SEASON. I'm not saying we reached this point, but clearly at some point a team does not have money to resign all of its free agents as they ask for higher salaries. We didn't have the money to increase payroll to 140 million if that's what was required to keep Colon, Everett, Sullivan, and Gordon, correct? Did we have 85 million? Maybe but I don't think its a given that any team has the ability to raise payroll to any level just to keep its club together.

Jeremy , Please dont confuse Having your Car Stuck in "Neutral" as being better than being "Stuck in Reverse". In the Business world as in Life, its Just As Bad to Be Spinning your Wheels, Getting NoWhere, as it is to be Going/Thinking Backward. Think about it, If you were a business that just Pulled This Stunt on your Customer Base, Wouldnt you say the Same Thing?

I posed this Question the other Day. Would you give me Business If I told you Buy My Stuff, and I'll Promise to make the PRoduct Better Later on? Or ......Better Yet .....
"Buy Our Stuff ........yeah , we didnt Improve it, but we didnt let it get worse either ! " Would you buy from me?

Iwritecode
01-27-2004, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
As I've said before I can understand desiring a higher payroll from JR, that's relatively reasonable. However, many act as though we've had a fire sale losing numerous key players to save money. This is not true. THE WHITE SOX HAVE NOT CUT PAYROLL FROM LAST SEASON. I'm not saying we reached this point, but clearly at some point a team does not have money to resign all of its free agents as they ask for higher salaries. We didn't have the money to increase payroll to 140 million if that's what was required to keep Colon, Everett, Sullivan, and Gordon, correct? Did we have 85 million? Maybe but I don't think its a given that any team has the ability to raise payroll to any level just to keep its club together.

My theory is that they base their budget based on a specific attendance number. I'm sure the number is relatively low. Somewhere between 1 and 1.5 million, or whatever is about average over the past 10 years or so. Then they say "ok, if we get X amount of fans next year, how much can we spend?" This year it was 60 million. Then at mid-season, if it looks like they might exceed that number, and the team is still in the running, they may increase the budget a little to aquire a couple of players.

The problem is that most of the time, it all turns into a self-fulfilling prophesy because the the budget doesn't allow them to put a team on the field worthy of a higher attendance.

If they were to instead say "how much could we spend if we drew 2 million next year?" and then spend based on that, they could probably come up with a budget that would allow them to put a team on the field worth of 2 million in attendance. The only difference with this approach is that there is more risk. They'd rather play it safe and not take any risks at all.

I have no doubt that the team is capable of drawing 2 million next year. They just have to make the right moves...

Hangar18
01-27-2004, 02:39 PM
Isnt this theory Called Deficit Spending? some sort of
Keynesian Economic theory or am I off base with that? Whatever the case,
this is a Practice thats Done All The Time in the Business
World .......... just not at 35th & Shields.

daveeym
01-27-2004, 02:42 PM
It boils down to the old saying, "You've got to spend money to make money."

joecrede
01-27-2004, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Jeremy , Please dont confuse Having your Car Stuck in "Neutral" as being better than being "Stuck in Reverse". In the Business world as in Life, its Just As Bad to Be Spinning your Wheels, Getting NoWhere, as it is to be Going/Thinking Backward. Think about it, If you were a business that just Pulled This Stunt on your Customer Base, Wouldnt you say the Same Thing?

What are you talking about?

jeremyb1
01-27-2004, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Jeremy , Please dont confuse Having your Car Stuck in "Neutral" as being better than being "Stuck in Reverse". In the Business world as in Life, its Just As Bad to Be Spinning your Wheels, Getting NoWhere, as it is to be Going/Thinking Backward. Think about it, If you were a business that just Pulled This Stunt on your Customer Base, Wouldnt you say the Same Thing?

I posed this Question the other Day. Would you give me Business If I told you Buy My Stuff, and I'll Promise to make the PRoduct Better Later on? Or ......Better Yet .....
"Buy Our Stuff ........yeah , we didnt Improve it, but we didnt let it get worse either ! " Would you buy from me?

I think being stuck in neutral is certainly better than being stuck in reverse. Everyone would rather stay the same than take a step backwards. Using your analogy, you'd rather purchase the same quality of a product than purchase a lesser quality product. Improving would be nice but what if a company doesn't have the room in its budget to do so? Their best option is certainly to continue to provide the same product.

voodoochile
01-27-2004, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
What are you talking about?

He's talking about the fact that the Sox may not have cut payroll, but they certainly had a fire sale, or what do you call losing your starting 2B, CF, staff ace, main RHRP?

It sure as heck isn't progress. When the money destined for some of those guys went into retaining Lee and Buehrle through their arbitration eligible years, it sure as heck looks like neutral to me.

Can you imagine the buzz if the Sox had managed to hold onto Colon and Alomar at least? The Harris and Rowand could have ST to fight it out in CF and the Sox would be division favorites. They might have even managed to crack the 2M attendance barrier this year.

Instead, they have lost about 4K season ticket holders from last year. Yes, some of that is the effect of the ASG, but there was a chance to try and keep some of those fans. Oh well, at least we got a roof on the UD... woo... hoo...:?:

Hangar18
01-27-2004, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Improving would be nice but what if a company doesn't have the room in its budget to do so? Their best option is certainly to continue to provide the same product.

Good point you raise. This works if Your the Only COMPANY selling said Product. The problem here, is that there are 29 Other companies Selling the Same Product, INCLUDING ONE IN YOUR VERY SAME MARKET, COMPETING DIRECTLY WITH YOU for Customers. That, is the problem
of just staying Same-Old Same-Old, Business-As-Usual. Good COmpanies Stay Ahead of the Game, before someone else Improves Product and you lose your customer base. The Sox,
Foolishly and Inexplicably let the their Direct Competitor Get Stronger and completely Dominate their Market
following this Misguided theory, and have seen their Business Suffer Accordingly

joecrede
01-27-2004, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
He's talking about the fact that the Sox may not have cut payroll, but they certainly had a fire sale, or what do you call losing your starting 2B, CF, staff ace, main RHRP?

It sure as heck isn't progress. When the money destined for some of those guys went into retaining Lee and Buehrle through their arbitration eligible years, it sure as heck looks like neutral to me.

Can you imagine the buzz if the Sox had managed to hold onto Colon and Alomar at least? The Harris and Rowand could have ST to fight it out in CF and the Sox would be division favorites. They might have even managed to crack the 2M attendance barrier this year.

Instead, they have lost about 4K season ticket holders from last year. Yes, some of that is the effect of the ASG, but there was a chance to try and keep some of those fans. Oh well, at least we got a roof on the UD... woo... hoo...:?:

Yes, the buzz would be overwhelming had they been able to bring Colon and Alomar back -- spending upwards of $80M to do so. People would be lining up to see if a group of underachievers could finally get over the hump.

voodoochile
01-27-2004, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Yes, the buzz would be overwhelming had they been able to bring Colon and Alomar back -- spending upwards of $80M to do so. People would be lining up to see if a group of underachievers could finally get over the hump.

I would estimate that they could have brought them both back and upped payroll to less than 75M, because they would have spent less on Lee and Buehrle in arbitration.

Hey, at least there would be something postive to talk about. Look at the alternative. Are you as a Sox fan happy with the shape of the team going into the season?

joecrede
01-27-2004, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Good point you raise. This works if Your the Only COMPANY selling said Product. The problem here, is that there are 29 Other companies Selling the Same Product, INCLUDING ONE IN YOUR VERY SAME MARKET, COMPETING DIRECTLY WITH YOU for Customers. That, is the problem
of just staying Same-Old Same-Old, Business-As-Usual. Good COmpanies Stay Ahead of the Game, before someone else Improves Product and you lose your customer base. The Sox,
following the above theory, have seen their Business Suffer Accordingly

The Sox are going to be in business for several seasons after this one. Spending beyond your means as an attempt to compete for the hearts of fans is a bad way to run a franchise.

voodoochile
01-27-2004, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
The Sox are going to be in business for several seasons after this one. Spending beyond your means as an attempt to compete for the hearts of fans is a bad way to run a franchise.

Really? You can prove that can you? Has it ever been tried in Chicago?

I'm not saying go out and break the bank, but winning the ALC should cost more than an additional 10M or so. Heck, the playoff boost alone would almost pay for that...

joecrede
01-27-2004, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I would estimate that they could have brought them both back and upped payroll to less than 75M, because they would have spent less on Lee and Buehrle in arbitration.

Hey, at least there would be something postive to talk about. Look at the alternative. Are you as a Sox fan happy with the shape of the team going into the season?

Happy about the upcoming season? Not entirely, but that is balanced by the fact that they aren't on the hook to for Colon's salary in '05, '06, '07.

Hangar18
01-27-2004, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
The Sox are going to be in business for several seasons after this one. Spending beyond your means as an attempt to compete for the hearts of fans is a bad way to run a franchise.

Yes, thats True, but I never said to Go Diamondback/Yankee Wild Spending on payroll. They couldve Gently upped this payroll, to Take Into account what it would take to Keep this group together.

Not Spending to compete for the hearts and minds of Fans is
Most Certainly a Bad Way to Run A Franchise Also. Guaranteed.

Especially when someone 8 miles north is helping to run your Franchise into the ground financially, spiritually, and physically

voodoochile
01-27-2004, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Happy about the upcoming season? Not entirely, but that is balanced by the fact that they aren't on the hook to for Colon's salary in '05, '06, '07.

So you are expecting a major drop off from him soon and expect he will be untradeable even should he struggle in the future.

Me, I get tired of watching stud pitching walk away from the Sox. Heck if he did nothing more than he did last year for the next 3 years, I'd be very happy and expect the team to be division favorites for most of that period of time...

joecrede
01-27-2004, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Really? You can prove that can you? Has it ever been tried in Chicago?

The Albert Belle signing ...

I'm not saying go out and break the bank, but winning the ALC should cost more than an additional 10M or so. Heck, the playoff boost alone would almost pay for that...

If they are within $10M of easily winning the division right now then I don't see why they wouldn't be favorites as is.

hold2dibber
01-27-2004, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
As I've said before I can understand desiring a higher payroll from JR, that's relatively reasonable. However, many act as though we've had a fire sale losing numerous key players to save money. This is not true. THE WHITE SOX HAVE NOT CUT PAYROLL FROM LAST SEASON. I'm not saying we reached this point, but clearly at some point a team does not have money to resign all of its free agents as they ask for higher salaries. We didn't have the money to increase payroll to 140 million if that's what was required to keep Colon, Everett, Sullivan, and Gordon, correct? Did we have 85 million? Maybe but I don't think its a given that any team has the ability to raise payroll to any level just to keep its club together.

Here's the deal. The way that the organization currently operates -- patch together a team each year based upon a projected attendance number in line with past lousy attendance numbers and hoping to catch lightening in a bottle -- is not working. It is a recipe for mediocrity, and that is exactly what the Sox are mired in - a long, long stretch of mediocrity. They'll probably be okay again next year, but as they continue to just eeck out an existence, their fan base continues to dwindle and their stature in the market continues to shrink. It's small minded, short-sighted thinking. The question is, what does this organization want? It appears to be content with its current lot - because it sure as hell isn't doing anything to change it.

Iwritecode
01-27-2004, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
The Albert Belle signing ...

It's been reported before that he only did that to piss off the other owners and raise the bar for salaries.

Originally posted by joecrede
If they are within $10M of easily winning the division right now then I don't see why they wouldn't be favorites as is.

Because another SP and either a CF/leadoff man or 2b/leadoff man could make a world of difference on this team...

voodoochile
01-27-2004, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
The Albert Belle signing ...



If they are within $10M of easily winning the division right now then I don't see why they wouldn't be favorites as is.

They could have been favorties, now that option is pretty much moot, though they could sign Maddux and prove me wrong.

Right now they are in a dogfight at best for the weakest division in baseball.

I'd have been more impressed with the Belle signing if they had actually backed it up with a pitcher or two when they were 3.5 games out of first at the end of July. We all know what they did instead...

maurice
01-27-2004, 04:23 PM
Being in neutral is not a good thing when your car is sinking into the mud.

In any event, the overall talent level of the club has been in reverse this offseason, which is a very bad thing considering that they were within spitting distance of .500 last season. Obscenely, Sox management continues to blame their customers for their refusal to even keep the talent level in neutral, despite increased attendance in 2003 and increased ticket prices in 2004. As Rozner explains:

It's like the grand opening of a new store, which informs you ahead of time that the shelves will be empty until you arrive and pay in advance to help them stock the place.

MisterB
01-27-2004, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
They couldve Gently upped this payroll, to Take Into account what it would take to Keep this group together.

To have kept the '03 squad together would have required a lot more than 'gently upping' the payroll. If you take into account the guaranteed raises to those under contract, plus the exercising of options and paying potential FA's at least the same amounts they made in '03 (which the Sox would have had to do to ensure their return*) we're talking an outlay of at least $40M. And that's not counting the raises that Lee, Buehrle and Garland would have gotten through arbitration. To keep the 2003 roster together would have meant a payroll in excess of $100M, and this would be just to bring back a roster that petered out down the stretch anyway.


*- if the Sox offered Everett the deal he eventually got from Montreal, do you think he would have accepted it without testing the market? Hell, Robbie even rejected a deal that was better than the one he eventually signed.

jeremyb1
01-27-2004, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Good point you raise. This works if Your the Only COMPANY selling said Product. The problem here, is that there are 29 Other companies Selling the Same Product, INCLUDING ONE IN YOUR VERY SAME MARKET, COMPETING DIRECTLY WITH YOU for Customers. That, is the problem
of just staying Same-Old Same-Old, Business-As-Usual. Good COmpanies Stay Ahead of the Game, before someone else Improves Product and you lose your customer base. The Sox,
Foolishly and Inexplicably let the their Direct Competitor Get Stronger and completely Dominate their Market
following this Misguided theory, and have seen their Business Suffer Accordingly

You're correct that good companies stay ahead of the competition but they do that by utilizing ideas better than their competitors as the A's do. The most successful companies aren't the companies that spend more money than they have at their disposal. Those companies go bankrupt and go out of business.

jeremyb1
01-27-2004, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I would estimate that they could have brought them both back and upped payroll to less than 75M, because they would have spent less on Lee and Buehrle in arbitration.

Hey, at least there would be something postive to talk about. Look at the alternative. Are you as a Sox fan happy with the shape of the team going into the season?

I fail to see any relationship between Buehrle and Lee's arbitration figures and resigning our free agent elligible players. The payroll currently stands at 60, factor in 13 to Colon, 3 to Alomar, 3 to gordon, 4 million to Everett, 1.5 million to Sullivan, we're clearly looking at an 85 million dollar payroll. Even just resigning Colon would've been an increase in payroll of more than 20% from last season. If ownership has the money to do that, they certainly should but I'm not sure its a no lose situation for them. Does keeping Colon up attendance 20% this season? I'm skeptical.

Hangar18
01-27-2004, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
.... Does keeping Colon up attendance 20% this season?
I'm skeptical.

It most certainly does. Its a GoodWill gesture to the fanbase
that says ...... YES, we do want to win. YES, we are giving ourselves the BEST chance to win this division, and go Deep in the Playoffs. By Not spending the $$$ for a pitcher like him,
they will NOW MOST CERTAINLY will pay EVEN MORE, either Monetarily or with Minor League Talent, to get a PITCHER like
him down the line. Pay Now .....Or Pay MORE Later.
sox seem to choose the latter often

joecrede
01-27-2004, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Does keeping Colon up attendance 20% this season? I'm skeptical.

Not a chance.

voodoochile
01-27-2004, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Not a chance.

Well, now we will never know.

I never said sign them all. I said sign Colon and Alomar. If they up the offer to Robbie just a little from where he turned them down - say 2 years, $5M and then they go to one year deals with Buehrle and Lee instead of the long term deals they commited to (that's what they did with the money they initially offered Colon) then they might have come out at a lower figure than they currently are which means adding Colon would only get them to 75M or so.

The Sox say they don't have the money. Are they basing it on last years attendance or expecting a big drop off? Once again, none of us know what they want or need. The only are willing to offer vague generalities like, if enough people show up in April and May, we will add payroll". How many freaking people is that exactly? How many season tickets do they need to sell to have a $75M payroll? Why not tell us?

Again, if the current payroll is based on them having 13K ST holders, then how much payroll would they be able to add if they had 15K ST holders? 17K? 19K?

If Colon would mean the difference between 13K and 15K ST holders (and I think that is a fair estimate - they sold 1000 packages last year the day after he signed) then he is a 15% increase to base attendance and a better chance to get the team off to a good start and take a run at a 20% increase. Yet, they would rather hedge their bets than take a chance.

It's called playing not to lose (money)...

maurice
01-27-2004, 07:01 PM
I don't know if it's 20%, but it's pretty darn significant. Keeping Colon would have helped attendance in two respects. First, it would help prevent the collapse of pre-season ticket sales (not only season tix) precipitated by this terrible off season. Second, it would help the Sox win several more games. Colon pitched 240 innings with a 3.87 ERA. Given his career numbers, he's likely to pitch 200+ innings with an ERA under 4 again in 2004. The Sox likely will replace those numbers with several pitchers with a cumulative ERA well above 5. That's certain to affect W-L and, thus, attendance. Even KW concedes that Colon was a huge loss, and the Sox have done nothing to compensate.

With Colon, etc. gone, I would not be at all surprised if the cubs drew almost twice as many paying customers as the Sox. While Sox management predictably will blame the fans, the true blame lies with their own mismanagement and squandering of several ripe business opportunities.