PDA

View Full Version : It's time for Reinsdorf to sell the White Sox -- BY BOB VANDERBERG


CallMeNuts
01-27-2004, 09:06 PM
Here's a conversation starter:

It's time for Reinsdorf to sell the White Sox -- By BOB VANDERBERG (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/7810767.htm)

doublem23
01-27-2004, 09:11 PM
Well... Yeah.

ChiWhiteSox1337
01-27-2004, 09:12 PM
these articles depress me because it'll never happen. :whiner:

soxfan26
01-27-2004, 09:15 PM
That conversation has been going on for quite some time around here. I totally agree...

:sellreinsy

doctor30th
01-27-2004, 09:29 PM
Not to get my head chopped off or anything, but I would prefer Jerry not to sell. With the groups that have been buying teams lately I wouldn't be too confident that the next ownership group wouldn't be worse.

Daver
01-27-2004, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by doctor30th
Not to get my head chopped off or anything, but I would prefer Jerry not to sell. With the groups that have been buying teams lately I wouldn't be too confident that the next ownership group wouldn't be worse.

Yeah the guy that bought the Angels not only lowered concession prices,but he also raised the payroll by 20 mil or so...........

doctor30th
01-27-2004, 09:45 PM
Yeah the guy that bought the Angels not only lowered concession prices,but he also raised the payroll by 20 mil or so...........

touché.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-27-2004, 09:54 PM
LOL! I guess Bob's column was too controversial for Chicago readers so they published it in San Jose instead? :smile:

Hey, between Rozner's column and Vanderberg's column, I would say we've made some real progress on the "Sell Jerry Sell" front.

Which reminds me...

:selljerry

SoxFan76
01-27-2004, 10:00 PM
wow, move the team to indy. that is depressing. even though it obviously wont happen in my lifetime, we arent the freakin devil rays. this is a team with 100 years of history. (hey, we arent the yankees, but its 100 years regardless). so for someone even to mention that depresses me.

but yeah, im all for jerry selling. he obviously doesnt know how to run an organization.

a stadium that holds 15,000? again, i dont really take this article serioulsy, but thats kind of insulting. the sox bring in plenty of fans when they are winning. alot more than 15,000 especially.

ok, briefly, can someone tell me why reinsdorf was hired? this is a serious question. i mean, he must have looked good at the time when they hired him.

soxfan26
01-27-2004, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by SoxFan76
ok, briefly, can someone tell me why reinsdorf was hired? this is a serious question. i mean, he must have looked good at the time when they hired him.

JR bought the team. So you could say that he hired himself. Had he been just a hired hand, they would have fired him years ago.

A.T. Money
01-27-2004, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by SoxFan76


ok, briefly, can someone tell me why reinsdorf was hired? this is a serious question. i mean, he must have looked good at the time when they hired him.

He wasn't hired. He bought the team because Veeck was selling.

SoxFan76
01-27-2004, 10:06 PM
duh, sorry. stupid question

doctor30th
01-27-2004, 10:07 PM
There is only one thing I have a problem with, him getting on the team for not signing payton and ponson, who are not worth the contracts they recieved and if the White Sox would have signed them to contracts like that I would have felt like they were way overpaying for the talent they would be getting.

mdep524
01-27-2004, 10:39 PM
I know everyone wants JR to sell, but come on guys, this article is BOGUS. The headline is "Reinsdorf waves white flag early on South Side" and it is currently the LEAD story on chicagosports.com--even though there is no "news" content to it at all. He villianizes the Sox for not getting Payton or Ponson. When we were ever seriously interested in Payton, especially considering the CF propsects we have on the way? And though there was interest in Ponson, why the hell would we pay a ludicrious $8 million per year for him? The Cubs won't even offer that to Greg frickin' Maddux!

He also conspiculously mentions how Chicago is a "Cubs town." It's all PR, guys. This was just another bashing by the Cubune, to cover up the positive press of Saturday's SoxFest being sold out. Don't be fooled.

dickallen15
01-27-2004, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Yeah the guy that bought the Angels not only lowered concession prices,but he also raised the payroll by 20 mil or so...........

The beer went from $9 to $7, not exactly a bargain. He did spend some on players. We'll see what happens with him down the road. A couple of injuries, and he may be Tom Hicks, looking to dump payroll.

dickallen15
01-27-2004, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by SoxFan76
wow, move the team to indy. that is depressing. even though it obviously wont happen in my lifetime, we arent the freakin devil rays. this is a team with 100 years of history. (hey, we arent the yankees, but its 100 years regardless). so for someone even to mention that depresses me.

but yeah, im all for jerry selling. he obviously doesnt know how to run an organization.

a stadium that holds 15,000? again, i dont really take this article serioulsy, but thats kind of insulting. the sox bring in plenty of fans when they are winning. alot more than 15,000 especially.

ok, briefly, can someone tell me why reinsdorf was hired? this is a serious question. i mean, he must have looked good at the time when they hired him.

I'm absolutely positive the suggestion about moving to Indianapolis was made only in jest.

soxfan26
01-27-2004, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by mdep524
I know everyone wants JR to sell, but come on guys, this article is BOGUS. The headline is "Reinsdorf waves white flag early on South Side" and it is currently the LEAD story on chicagosports.com--even though there is no "news" content to it at all. He villianizes the Sox for not getting Payton or Ponson. When we were ever seriously interested in Payton, especially considering the CF propsects we have on the way? And though there was interest in Ponson, why the hell would we pay a ludicrious $8 million per year for him? The Cubs won't even offer that to Greg frickin' Maddux!

He also conspiculously mentions how Chicago is a "Cubs town." It's all PR, guys. This was just another bashing by the Cubune, to cover up the positive press of Saturday's SoxFest being sold out. Don't be fooled.

Where do we have CF prospects on the way?

Last I checked Reed had never played above AA ball and the sun was setting on Borchard's days. Aside from that Payton was even more attractive when there was serious talk of moving Maggs or C Lee.

It does have something to do with PR though. It is the result of years of negative PR by JR. Weather it is in the Tribune or not, it accurately reflects the feelings of most Sox fans.

mdep524
01-27-2004, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
Where do we have CF prospects on the way?

Last I checked Reed had never played above AA ball and the sun was setting on Borchard's days. Aside from that Payton was even more attractive when there was serious talk of moving Maggs or C Lee.

It does have something to do with PR though. It is the result of years of negative PR by JR. Weather it is in the Tribune or not, it accurately reflects the feelings of most Sox fans.

I would say hitting .400 at AA counts as being "on the way," if not this April, then soon. (I do agree that Borchard is dangerously close to "bust" territory though.)

It's all PR though. If the Cubs are outbid for Maddux, do you think the Cubune will run any article saying how they didn't try hard enough, or were too cheap or, in Vanderberg's words, "How foolish of Cubs fans to expect the Tribune Co. to shell out $9 million per season to a pitcher who—dare we suggest it?—might be even better than sure-fire Hall of Famer Shawn Estes"? No.

If the Cubs signed Takatsu, would they refer to him as a "guy who last season was out of the country"? Heck no, he'd get superstar treatment, like the immortal Hee Sop Choi did.

DrCrawdad
01-27-2004, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by mdep524
I would say hitting .400 at AA counts as being "on the way," if not this April, then soon. (I do agree that Borchard is dangerously close to "bust" territory though.)

It's all PR though. If the Cubs are outbid for Maddux, do you think the Cubune will run any article saying how they didn't try hard enough, or were too cheap or, in Vanderberg's words, "How foolish of Cubs fans to expect the Tribune Co. to shell out $9 million per season to a pitcher who—dare we suggest it?—might be even better than sure-fire Hall of Famer Shawn Estes"? No.

If the Cubs signed Takatsu, would they refer to him as a "guy who last season was out of the country"? Heck no, he'd get superstar treatment, like the immortal Hee Sop Choi did.

I agreed with most of the article, even though I've defended Reinsdorf in the past. However I'm not sold on Jay Payton.

You're right about Shingo. I don't remember reading much positive about the signing in comparison the Sun-Times had an article about the positive reaction by the Chicago Japanese community & a positive article about Shingo's chances in MLB.

Expect the Cubbies to sign Maddux some time between now and Monday.

soxfan26
01-27-2004, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by mdep524
I would say hitting .400 at AA counts as being "on the way," if not this April, then soon. (I do agree that Borchard is dangerously close to "bust" territory though.)

It's all PR though. If the Cubs are outbid for Maddux, do you think the Cubune will run any article saying how they didn't try hard enough, or were too cheap or, in Vanderberg's words, "How foolish of Cubs fans to expect the Tribune Co. to shell out $9 million per season to a pitcher who—dare we suggest it?—might be even better than sure-fire Hall of Famer Shawn Estes"? No.

If the Cubs signed Takatsu, would they refer to him as a "guy who last season was out of the country"? Heck no, he'd get superstar treatment, like the immortal Hee Sop Choi did.

Jeremy Reed is a right fielder. The Sox would be playing him out of position to play him in center. He would not be the first guy to play out of position, but again Payton was a cheap alternative to C Lee or Maggs, had they been traded.

In this case, an article in the Tribune pretty accurately reflects the feelings of most Sox fans. JR has been finding an excuse to not spend money for years. If you don't think Sox fans think that way, then I invite you to read this thread, among others...

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28682

duke of dorwood
01-27-2004, 11:19 PM
The point is that some of us care that we fell off the radar screen. Some of us care why and who is responsible. How anyone can not resent this business man-content to hear that he is one of the select that own major league teams. And yet, lie to the fan base about being broke. No tag day is needed for this team or ANY of the investors. I'd like to have the bank account of any of them. To continuously finish second in a terrible division, and not do what is truly necessary to win, is something I cannot forgive.

DrCrawdad
01-27-2004, 11:25 PM
I have a dream...I have a dream...I have a dream that one day the Reinsdorf group will sell the team to the owner who'll be the best for the interests of the fans. I have a dream that one day we will have an owner willing to invest his (or her) money in the team. I have a dream.

TornLabrum
01-27-2004, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by mdep524
I know everyone wants JR to sell, but come on guys, this article is BOGUS. The headline is "Reinsdorf waves white flag early on South Side" and it is currently the LEAD story on chicagosports.com--even though there is no "news" content to it at all. He villianizes the Sox for not getting Payton or Ponson. When we were ever seriously interested in Payton, especially considering the CF propsects we have on the way? And though there was interest in Ponson, why the hell would we pay a ludicrious $8 million per year for him? The Cubs won't even offer that to Greg frickin' Maddux!

He also conspiculously mentions how Chicago is a "Cubs town." It's all PR, guys. This was just another bashing by the Cubune, to cover up the positive press of Saturday's SoxFest being sold out. Don't be fooled.

EXCEPT Vanderberg is a Sox fan. 'Splain that away.

Daver
01-27-2004, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
Jeremy Reed is a right fielder.

Well,actually Jeremy Reed is a converted infielder,and best suited in LF.He doesn't really have the arm to play right.

Lip Man 1
01-27-2004, 11:42 PM
MDEP:

Obviously you don't know this but Bob Vanderberg is a long time Sox fan, has written three books on the team and is the assistant sports editor of the Tribune.

He's also been an interview subjest here at WSI. Go to the WSI Interview link on the left side of the main page. Click on it then click on the link that says Bob Vanderberg speaks to learn more about him.

as for the comment "Chicago has always been a Cubs town," Bob was sarcastically repeating what our 'enlightened' owner himself said on ESPN Radio 1000 in June 2002 right before the start of the Sox / Cubs series.

Adding insult to injury is the fact that good ole' Uncle Jer should know better he LIVED here in Chicago in the late 50's and through the 60's when it was the Sox dominating the news and the Cubs were an afterthought.

Lip

Lip Man 1
01-27-2004, 11:45 PM
Dick:

At least Moreno is trying and has stolen the thunder of the Dodgers remember he also is in a two team town. What has Uncle Jer done?

Like Ron Rapoport said in his WSI interview, Chicago is a two team town and the fans have a choice. The Sox have to realize there are consequences to their actions (or more appropriately their non - actions...)

soxfan26
01-27-2004, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Well,actually Jeremy Reed is a converted infielder,and best suited in LF.He doesn't really have the arm to play right.

I knew that :D:

mdep524
01-28-2004, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
MDEP:

Obviously you don't know this but Bob Vanderberg is a long time Sox fan, has written three books on the team and is the assistant sports editor of the Tribune.

OK, I can see that the guy is a Sox fan, and no doubt he is accurately describing what we all feel and express ourselves over and over here on the boards. I'm not criticizing him, but you can't tell me the Cubine wasn't overjoyed when he came up with the idea of "hey, let's run yet another article showing how awful the Sox are!"

JR is just so frustratingly out of touch. It really gets me--and all of us--upset. And it is so frustrating to see so much negative press on top of everything. I didn't mean to take a shot at Vanderberg.

Lip Man 1
01-28-2004, 12:13 AM
With respect if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and flies like a duck...it's a duck.

In this case everything Bob said is true, 'favoritism' (i.e. 'it's a Cub paper and they must be thrilled to run something like this) has absolutely no bearing.

If you're tired of "Cub propaganda" there is a simple solution...win a friggin' championship and even the most anti Sox member of the media will have to give the devil his due. Till then this pathetic, woebegone, arrogant organization deserves to be constantly kicked around. They deserve every once of abuse.

Lip

ewokpelts
01-28-2004, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by dickallen15
The beer went from $9 to $7, not exactly a bargain. He did spend some on players. We'll see what happens with him down the road. A couple of injuries, and he may be Tom Hicks, looking to dump payroll.

those extra two bucks add up when you're buying more beer..it's like buying 4 beersand getting 1 free...
Gene

hellenicsoxfan
01-28-2004, 12:34 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lip Man 1
[B]MDEP:

as for the comment "Chicago has always been a Cubs town," Bob was sarcastically repeating what our 'enlightened' owner himself said on ESPN Radio 1000 in June 2002 right before the start of the Sox / Cubs series.


I was disgusted when Reinsdorf made this comment. Historically, this has not been a Cubs town (at least it wasn't until Reinsdorf/Einhorn came to town and alienated their customer base every chance they had) and to hear the Sox owner say it sickened me. Instead of just accepting it, Uncle Jer, how about looking in the mirror, admitting that you've screwed up the franchise and make a BOLD move to return our Sox to the status they deserve. The boldest and best move would be to sell the team. Sell the Sox. Please. Now.

jabrch
01-28-2004, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by Daver
Yeah the guy that bought the Angels not only lowered concession prices,but he also raised the payroll by 20 mil or so...........

Did you read the interview with Moreno? After signing Vlad they asked him if he was going to raise beer prices. Moreno, completely straight-faced, said, "Heck no, we have our priorities straight."

:reinsy
To which JR is rumored to have responded, "Not raising prices? Investing in your product? How will you ever make money?"

chisoxmike
01-28-2004, 01:08 AM
Wow, that was a HORRIBLE article. Of course it was written in the Tribune, and of course it suggests to move the team. Wow, this makes me hate the Tribune even more. I would rather see this team lose in Chicago than to see it win in another city! :angry:

Wsoxmike59
01-28-2004, 07:31 AM
There is an excellent column by Tribune Staff writer Bob Vanderberg on page 2 of today's Chicago Tribune. Every Sox fan should read it.

Wsoxmike59


Reinsdorf Waves Flag Early On Southside (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-040127soxvandyonsox,1,2097572,print.story?coll=cs-home-headlines)


VC Edit: The link is enough, please don't repost entire articles.

CallMeNuts
01-28-2004, 07:40 AM
a thread was started on this article when it showed up last night, on-line, on the san jose mercury news.

Wsoxmike59
01-28-2004, 07:55 AM
chisoxmike, I think it was a great article. The whole point of it being that the Sox just don't seem all that interested in fielding a competitive team this year. The moves we've made in the offseason have been "minor" in comparison to the players that we lost.

The only hope that I've got for 2004 is that we play in an extremely weak division, and the hope that Ozzie Guillen brings back the small ball and "doing the lil' things" concept of the early 1990's that the Sox played with under Mgr. Jeff Torborg.

gosox41
01-28-2004, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by soxfan26
JR bought the team. So you could say that he hired himself. Had he been just a hired hand, they would have fired him years ago.

JR is the general partner in an LLP. He probably can be shown the door if he shows obvious neglect business wise. Other owners would have to vote him out which is doubtful. But to show neglect doesn't mean having two different business philosophy's running a team. It's more complicated then that.

Bob

gosox41
01-28-2004, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
The point is that some of us care that we fell off the radar screen. Some of us care why and who is responsible. How anyone can not resent this business man-content to hear that he is one of the select that own major league teams. And yet, lie to the fan base about being broke. No tag day is needed for this team or ANY of the investors. I'd like to have the bank account of any of them. To continuously finish second in a terrible division, and not do what is truly necessary to win, is something I cannot forgive.

Are you going to SoxFest this weekend?

Bob

34rancher
01-28-2004, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by ewokpelts
those extra two bucks add up when you're buying more beer..it's like buying 4 beersand getting 1 free...
Gene

My only question is did the quantity stay the same, or did the beer change to Milwaukee's Beast?

soxfan26
01-28-2004, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
JR is the general partner in an LLP. He probably can be shown the door if he shows obvious neglect business wise. Other owners would have to vote him out which is doubtful. But to show neglect doesn't mean having two different business philosophy's running a team. It's more complicated then that.

Bob

What exactly are you trying to say here? I was responding to the question "Why don't the Sox fire JR?" There are no signs of conflicting business philosophies within the Sox ownership group. JR is the owner, he would have to be bought out, it's no more complicated than that.

ssang
01-28-2004, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by chisoxmike
Wow, that was a HORRIBLE article. Of course it was written in the Tribune, and of course it suggests to move the team. Wow, this makes me hate the Tribune even more. I would rather see this team lose in Chicago than to see it win in another city! :angry:

You're obvsiously not able to read between the lines. Dude, every comment that put the Sox down in this particular article was said in jest. Do you know what "in jest" means? He was taking a shot at Reinsdorf with the Indianapolis comment. All the man is saying is that our ass-clown owner might as well move the tram to Indy with the way he treats the organization and fans. Reindsorf acts like a small market owner!

I for one (and I'm right) am very happy this was publishied in the Tribune. Any intelligent person can see that this article is pro-White Sox and it's something that helps finally express to the public how WE feel as Sox fans. It exposes Jerry Reinsdorf, the miserable owner, for everything negative and wrong he has done as our pathetic owner. Wise up, son.

gosox41
01-28-2004, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by soxfan26
What exactly are you trying to say here? I was responding to the question "Why don't the Sox fire JR?" There are no signs of conflicting business philosophies within the Sox ownership group. JR is the owner, he would have to be bought out, it's no more complicated than that.


I was trying to respond to soxfan76's post.

And you missed my point about how to get JR out. If it's so simple, then go find him a buyer and make him an offer he can't refuse.

All the talk here about Jerry selling isn't going to happen. He's not going to listen to you or me. My point was if he did show enough incompentece, the current ownership group could remain intact and someone more competent could run the team. That's the other way to have JR stop running the team.

Bob

hold2dibber
01-28-2004, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by chisoxmike
Wow, that was a HORRIBLE article. Of course it was written in the Tribune, and of course it suggests to move the team. Wow, this makes me hate the Tribune even more. I would rather see this team lose in Chicago than to see it win in another city! :angry:

Jeez. You've completely missed the point. He was being sarcastic and bashing Reinsdorf for running the team like a 2nd class operation; the suggestion that they move to Indianapolis was a not serious - it was a jab at the team for acting like a small market (e.g., Indianapolis) team, when it actually is in the third largest market in the country. The article was right on the money - the whole point is that Sox ownership has screwed over the Sox fans and alienated the fan base. And that's a true story.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-28-2004, 08:49 AM
It's the BEST story I've read about the plight of the White Sox franchise -- EVER.

This is no small praise. You know what an anal retentive jerk I can be with how the English language is used and abused. I have a low tolerance for nonsense, too. I bitch about the poor quality of Chicago sports media all the time. So for me to single out this piece by Bob Vanderberg and give it my highest endorsement is truly unique. In fact it is unprecedented.

If I could flatter myself for just one moment, the central theme Vanderberg nails has been the exact same theme this website has been devoted to for over five years now. Namely, that Sox Fans don't get an even break and the primary reason this happens has been cheap, timid, and stupid ownership. I'm glad Vanderberg wrote about it so persuasively and to such a large audience. If WSI had any hand in providing his inspiration, I'm very proud.

:moron
"Hey PHG, where's the love?"

:ass
"Yeah, what about me?"

:clueless
"You won't have Skip Bayless to kick around anymore!"

soxfan26
01-28-2004, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
I was trying to respond to soxfan76's post.

And you missed my point about how to get JR out. If it's so simple, then go find him a buyer and make him an offer he can't refuse.

All the talk here about Jerry selling isn't going to happen. He's not going to listen to you or me. My point was if he did show enough incompentece, the current ownership group could remain intact and someone more competent could run the team. That's the other way to have JR stop running the team.

Bob

Your point about how to take control away from JR is just as far fetched as ours is.

Brian26
01-28-2004, 09:58 AM
Friendly word of advice: Don't post entire articles (so we don't get in trouble).

Now, as for the article, they mention Bob has written 3 White Sox books. Does anyone know which ones he wrote and if they're any good?

Procol Harum
01-28-2004, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by chisoxmike
Wow, that was a HORRIBLE article. Of course it was written in the Tribune, and of course it suggests to move the team. Wow, this makes me hate the Tribune even more. I would rather see this team lose in Chicago than to see it win in another city! :angry:


I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark that chisoxmike is probably not a literature major....talk about missing the point, sheeesshh!

jeremyb1
01-28-2004, 11:09 AM
I agree with the article that
1) Payroll should be higher.
2) More should be done to try to recapture the attendance prior to the strike.

However, most of the article was ridiculous.
1) By using the term "white flag", another writer implied we were cutting salary to try to save money when payroll is not be decreased.
2) 13 million to Colon per season can most certainly break that bank. That contract would've raised our payroll more than 20%.
3) Takatsu is not a major signing because he's from out of the country? Contreras, Ichiro, Ishii, and Sasaki were all certainly considered major signings.

StepsInSC
01-28-2004, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Brian26
Friendly word of advice: Don't post entire articles (so we don't get in trouble).

Now, as for the article, they mention Bob has written 3 White Sox books. Does anyone know which ones he wrote and if they're any good?


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Vanderberg%2C%20Bob/102-6846735-9846521


Never read any of them but I'll have to pick 'em up sometime.

hold2dibber
01-28-2004, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
1) By using the term "white flag", another writer implied we were cutting salary to try to save money when payroll is not be decreased.

C'mon, Jeremy. You're being exceedingly narrow in your interpretation of the term "white flag". Why must it only mean "cutting payroll"? Why can't it mean "losing important players"? Why can't it mean "failing to take any action to improve"? The truth is, although the Sox have not actually cut salary to save money, they have lost players (Colon, Alomar, Everett, Graffinino, Sullivan) to save money and have lost out cheap, good players (Stairs, Payton, etc.) who could have helped. That's the point of the article, and getting caught up on your personal interpretation of the meaning of "white flag" misses the point.

2) 13 million to Colon per season can most certainly break that bank. That contract would've raised our payroll more than 20%..

You're missing the forest for the trees. You agree with the major points of the article (i.e., that it payroll should be higher and the Sox are not doing what it takes to recapture the fan base) but quibble with his ideas for solving the problems. I agree that Colon would not have been worth the money - but taking the $14 million it would have taken to pay Colon in '04 and using it to sign Stairs ($1 million), Sullivan ($3 million), Hentgen ($3 million), Bautista ($4 million) and Payton ($3 million) would have been a pretty good use of that money and would have gone a long way towards solving the two major problems identified by the article, no?


3) Takatsu is not a major signing because he's from out of the country? Contreras, Ichiro, Ishii, and Sasaki were all certainly considered major signings.

Takatsu is not a major signing because he's not nearly as good (from all accounts and based on the stats I've seen) or as young as any of those other guys. Do you really think he's going to be particularly good?

Irishsox1
01-28-2004, 12:31 PM
The guy may have had some good points, but on a bigger issue Major League Baseball is totally out of wack when it comes to payroll. Baseball has no salary cap, no sharing of income, no salary minium and a joke of a drug testing policy. The players union is out of control and owers are not united. Reisdorf, as the owner of the White Sox, is not the problem given the overall set-up of MLB. As for the guys article, he lost me with the Indianapolis comment. The talk of the White Sox moving anywhere is not funny or insightful under any context. Plus, the Tribune Corp. would love it if the Sox moved so they could have 100% of the Chicago market and not the current 63.4%. I'm for tearing down the MLB and starting from scratch.

longshot7
01-28-2004, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by Irishsox1
Baseball has no salary cap, no sharing of income, no salary minium and a joke of a drug testing policy. I'm for tearing down the MLB and starting from scratch.

oh yeah, that's gonna happen...

1) revenue sharing does exist
2) a salary cap is a joke - see the nfl's comepetitve balance - every team is plain mediocore.
3) what players do in their free time is their business, not ours. drug testing is an invasion of privacy.

FanOf14
01-28-2004, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by longshot7
3) what players do in their free time is their business, not ours. drug testing is an invasion of privacy.

So what you are saying is that it's okay for players to do steroids? :?:

ewokpelts
01-28-2004, 12:52 PM
intersting article....sound like bob's pissed off at the sox brass....i dont know about some of you, but i dug his venom...
Gene

longshot7
01-28-2004, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
The beer went from $9 to $7, not exactly a bargain. He did spend some on players. We'll see what happens with him down the road. A couple of injuries, and he may be Tom Hicks, looking to dump payroll.

Actually, it was more from $7 to $4 - and that's a bargain.

Dan H
01-28-2004, 01:07 PM
This was a great column. As we fans head into SoxFest, all we can do is hope for is some dramatic moves before the season begins. We have no idea if that will happen, and it is really hard to see what direction the team is headed.

The White Sox are out of touch. Talking about budgets and telling fans they have to come out to the park is no way to build a team. They've been doing it for the almost 10 years since the strike and have one division title and plenty of fan alienation to show for it.

They need to wake up or sell. Rebuidling and small market strategies aren't going to make it. Will they ever learn? I doubt it.

Hullett_Fan
01-28-2004, 01:18 PM
IMO, this team should just admit they can't compete (well they already are in a way!) and LOWER payroll to $30 mill., put some scrappy guys on the field (i.e. a 'AAAA' team) and cut all prices in HALF. Hopefully after a few years of this they'll have run a big enough profit again that they can triple payroll and put a real team on the field. It couldn't hurt and attendance would definitely increase.

Just a thought.... Fire away! :D:

longshot7
01-28-2004, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by FanOf14
So what you are saying is that it's okay for players to do steroids? :?:

yeah, who cares? It doesn't help you see the ball any better.

jeremyb1
01-28-2004, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
C'mon, Jeremy. You're being exceedingly narrow in your interpretation of the term "white flag". Why must it only mean "cutting payroll"? Why can't it mean "losing important players"? Why can't it mean "failing to take any action to improve"? The truth is, although the Sox have not actually cut salary to save money, they have lost players (Colon, Alomar, Everett, Graffinino, Sullivan) to save money and have lost out cheap, good players (Stairs, Payton, etc.) who could have helped. That's the point of the article, and getting caught up on your personal interpretation of the meaning of "white flag" misses the point.

You're missing the forest for the trees. You agree with the major points of the article (i.e., that it payroll should be higher and the Sox are not doing what it takes to recapture the fan base) but quibble with his ideas for solving the problems. I agree that Colon would not have been worth the money - but taking the $14 million it would have taken to pay Colon in '04 and using it to sign Stairs ($1 million), Sullivan ($3 million), Hentgen ($3 million), Bautista ($4 million) and Payton ($3 million) would have been a pretty good use of that money and would have gone a long way towards solving the two major problems identified by the article, no?

Takatsu is not a major signing because he's not nearly as good (from all accounts and based on the stats I've seen) or as young as any of those other guys. Do you really think he's going to be particularly good?

I don't see it as my personal interpretation of "white flag". The phrase implies surrendering, backing down, giving in completely. I fail to see how you can back down by keeping payroll at the same level. If you base the phrase "white flag" entirely on talent, you could theoretically require a team to up payroll 40 million dollars to avoid "white flagging" it. That simply doesn't make any sense. Even if the term can be used appropriately to signal a failure to increase payroll, the article should at least signify that usage. At no point in the article is it mentioned what the Sox payroll is this season compared to last season and that is misleading.

Our disagreement here seems to be that you think that as long as one agrees with the premise of an article, whatever follows is unimportant. I completely disagree. To be a good writer you must offer strong support for you arguments. If you make an argument that is correct but support it with inaccuracies and idiotic statements, you have not written an effective article. We both seem to agree that Takatsu is not a bad signing because he's foreign and that signing Colon to a 13 million a year contract is an incredible financial investment for any club not named the Yankees. I think that by making illogical and misleading statements thoughout his argument Vanderburg loses the credibility necessary to advance what I feel is an important argument.

hold2dibber
01-28-2004, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Hullett_Fan
IMO, this team should just admit they can't compete (well they already are in a way!) and LOWER payroll to $30 mill., put some scrappy guys on the field (i.e. a 'AAAA' team) and cut all prices in HALF. Hopefully after a few years of this they'll have run a big enough profit again that they can triple payroll and put a real team on the field. It couldn't hurt and attendance would definitely increase.

Just a thought.... Fire away! :D:

Attendance would definitely increase? Are you serious? If the Sox fielded a bunch of scrappy yet crappy ("AAAA") players, at the same time the Cubs are assembling one of the best teams in the NL, attendance would plummet, many of the few remaining hard core fans would quit the team forever and the team would leave its cycle of mediocrity in exchange for a cycle of being abysmal. If people want to watch minor league baseball in the Chicago area, they have many options (Cheetahs, Flyers and Cougars). You can't seriously think that making the Sox into one would actually make more people come to the park, can you?

Hullett_Fan
01-28-2004, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Attendance would definitely increase? Are you serious? If the Sox fielded a bunch of scrappy yet crappy ("AAAA") players, at the same time the Cubs are assembling one of the best teams in the NL, attendance would plummet, many of the few remaining hard core fans would quit the team forever and the team would leave its cycle of mediocrity in exchange for a cycle of being abysmal. If people want to watch minor league baseball in the Chicago area, they have many options (Cheetahs, Flyers and Cougars). You can't seriously think that making the Sox into one would actually make more people come to the park, can you?


I guess that's a choice we as fans would have to make.

Are you more willing to spend $150 (tix + food for family of 4) to watch a mediocre team...or $75 to watch an abysmal (though possibly mediocre...at least better than Tigers) team???

My response was directed to folks who say they'd still love the team even if it lost 100 games.

IMO, attendance would increase due to lower prices. Die-hards could go to more games (IIRC, bulk of 30,000+ attendance from late 70s and early 80's was from people that went to 20+ games a year). Most folks can only afford to go to a few games a year (if not one!) because ballpark prices have risen much faster than inflation rate. Once our 'AAAA' players develop, the team could raise tix prices and payroll. It's like rebuilding without making us pay major league prices.

Lip Man 1
01-28-2004, 02:31 PM
Brian:

The two books that I have of Bob's are "Summer of 59'" and "Minnie and the Mick."

They are incredible books filled with massive amounts of detail including a game by game recap of the entire 59 season. Minnie and the Mick looks at the Yankee / Soix wars from 51-64. He has over thirty interviews from players on both sides.

Also look up Bob's interview with WSI where he talks about how the books came to be and give us details of how the interviews went.

I enjoyed those books very, very much.

Lip

Sell Jerry Sell!
01-28-2004, 03:19 PM
What do you guys think that if Bud sells the Brewers, now that they are for sale, he tells Uncle Jerry to sell and then he can become a high ranking baseball official.

Any comments on that?

MisterB
01-28-2004, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I don't see it as my personal interpretation of "white flag". The phrase implies surrendering, backing down, giving in completely. I fail to see how you can back down by keeping payroll at the same level. If you base the phrase "white flag" entirely on talent, you could theoretically require a team to up payroll 40 million dollars to avoid "white flagging" it. That simply doesn't make any sense. Even if the term can be used appropriately to signal a failure to increase payroll, the article should at least signify that usage. At no point in the article is it mentioned what the Sox payroll is this season compared to last season and that is misleading.

Yes, it would have taken at least a $40M jump to bring back last year's roster. But the Sox did not increase the payroll to the amount neccessary to retain the talent they had, nor have they replaced the players they lost with ones of a similar talent level. Overall this team has less talent than it did last year (regardless of salary), and that team wasn't good enough to win the division. In other words, if an '8' is needed to win the division, the Sox were a 7 last year, and they are not only not trying to make the team an 8, or keep it at 7, but instead letting it slip to 5 or 6. They weren't good enough last year, and they aren't trying to make themselves better. They are not trying to be competitive. They are hoping that the Twins collapse and that KC doesn't improve. They will take the division if it's handed to them, but are not actively trying to take it themselves. They are conceding the division to any team that wants it. They are white flagging it.

Baby Fisk
01-28-2004, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Sell Jerry Sell!
What do you guys think that if Bud sells the Brewers, now that they are for sale, he tells Uncle Jerry to sell and then he can become a high ranking baseball official.

Any comments on that?
Commissioner Reinsdorf?!?! :o:

ssang
01-28-2004, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by Irishsox1
... As for the guys article, he lost me with the Indianapolis comment. The talk of the White Sox moving anywhere is not funny or insightful under any context. Plus, the Tribune Corp. would love it if the Sox moved so they could have 100% of the Chicago market and not the current 63.4%. I'm for tearing down the MLB and starting from scratch.

I have an annoucment to make....ANYONE who is is insulted by the Sox moving to Indianapolis comment from this article is a MORON! It's NOT an insult. It's meant as a way to prove a point that the Sox managment acts like a small market team. It's said in jest. Stop whining. I can't stand the fans who bicth and complain about the way the Sox are portrayed by the media. 99% of it is true. The Sox ownership deserves to get slammed. Let me ask all you whining fools this....What can the media possibly print about the Sox in a positive light at this moment??? NOTHING. Now shut up already.

SoxFan76
01-28-2004, 05:01 PM
I understand what he meant by the Indy comment. I know it was not a serious comment. What i said was that it just depresses me to even hear that. We are one of the bigger markets, yet the team is ran like a small market team.

I think this article is a must read for Cub fans. They feel we are inferior as fans because the management doesn't know what they are doing. Because we don't go out to the ballpark for a 2nd or 3rd place team, that makes all us dirty poor Sox fans inferior. It's really not fair. And being the son of a Cubs fan (mom), I have realized they don't base arguments on facts, but rather what the Tribune says. So for an article like this to be in the Cubune is great.

maurice
01-28-2004, 05:16 PM
I can't believe the Trib published such an honest article. Did this really make the print edition?

Hullett_Fan
01-28-2004, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Sell Jerry Sell!
What do you guys think that if Bud sells the Brewers, now that they are for sale, he tells Uncle Jerry to sell and then he can become a high ranking baseball official.

Any comments on that?

That's a thought. Maybe combine the Sox and Brewers and build a stadium in Waukegan or Gurnee. Then we'd have a team with a major league payroll.

beckett21
01-28-2004, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by SoxFan76

I think this article is a must read for Cub fans. They feel we are inferior as fans because the management doesn't know what they are doing. Because we don't go out to the ballpark for a 2nd or 3rd place team, that makes all us dirty poor Sox fans inferior. It's really not fair. And being the son of a Cubs fan (mom), I have realized they don't base arguments on facts, but rather what the Tribune says. So for an article like this to be in the Cubune is great. [/B]

Personally I couldn't care less what Cub fans think. I have grown up surrounded by Cub fans my whole life--I broke the mold, so to speak. Bottom line is, the educated Cub fan(pardon the oxymoron) has suffered as much as we have, the purists. The morons who love the Cubs because it is a "party atmosphere," those people don't count for anything in my book. For the most part, they spew inane drivel to cover up their team's own inadequecies. There have been countless examples of their idiocy throughout all these threads ,ie "Comiskey is no fun, all you do there is watch the game," "who cares about winning," etc. etc. Basically, we have nothing to prove to the Cubs or their fans. Let's stop worrying about what they think of us or what they are doing--the issue is what the SOX are or are not doing. That is all I care about. The Cubs are just one of the other 29. (Granted I despise them with the intensity of 1000 suns!)

beckett21
01-28-2004, 07:03 PM
BTW the article was right on the money--bulls-eye.

TornLabrum
01-28-2004, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
as for the comment "Chicago has always been a Cubs town," Bob was sarcastically repeating what our 'enlightened' owner himself said on ESPN Radio 1000 in June 2002 right before the start of the Sox / Cubs series.

Adding insult to injury is the fact that good ole' Uncle Jer should know better he LIVED here in Chicago in the late 50's and through the 60's when it was the Sox dominating the news and the Cubs were an afterthought.

Lip, I think this might be a Reinsdorfian version of "The Big Lie." It's an idea used by dictators, and one of its early promulgators was Adolf Hitler. The theory is that if you tell a lie that is big enough long enough, people will believe it.

TornLabrum
01-28-2004, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by chisoxmike
Wow, that was a HORRIBLE article. Of course it was written in the Tribune, and of course it suggests to move the team. Wow, this makes me hate the Tribune even more. I would rather see this team lose in Chicago than to see it win in another city! :angry:

Some people wouldn't recognize sarcasm if it walked up and punched them in the nose.

TornLabrum
01-28-2004, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
1) By using the term "white flag", another writer implied we were cutting salary to try to save money when payroll is not be decreased.

The term "white flag" is about surrendering, not about salary.

dickallen15
01-28-2004, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by ewokpelts
those extra two bucks add up when you're buying more beer..it's like buying 4 beersand getting 1 free...
Gene


And if Reinsdorf charge $7 for a beer, the insults would be flying. My point was, Moreno did lower beer prices, but they are still much higher than they are at USCF. The fact of the matter is most Sox fans are not willing to shell out money to watch a winning team. Daver had an article about revenues a little while back. The Cubs draw approximately 1 million more than the White Sox per season. That was true last season, when many here were proud of the 1.9 the Sox drew. Cub tickets are higher priced overall. If the average price was $30 and the average profit on concession was $20, that's $50 million more revenue. The Cubs payroll is about $30 million more than the Sox. Put taxes into the equation, and the payroll Reinsdorf sets makes a lot of sense. The White Sox will not suddenly draw 3 million fans, even if their payroll was $200 million and they went 162-0. The Cubs are adding 200 premium seats between the dugouts, and a cost of $200-250 per seat. It will make them 3.2 million extra a season. That would never fly on the south side. If anyone wanted to stay in business, they would not be throwing money around at players. It doesn't affect attendance. When the Sox signed Albert Belle they had the 4th highest payroll in baseball, it didn't inspire anyone to show up.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-28-2004, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
And if Reinsdorf charge $7 for a beer, the insults would be flying. My point was, Moreno did lower beer prices, but they are still much higher than they are at USCF. The fact of the matter is most Sox fans are not willing to shell out money to watch a winning team. Daver had an article about revenues a little while back. The Cubs draw approximately 1 million more than the White Sox per season. That was true last season, when many here were proud of the 1.9 the Sox drew. Cub tickets are higher priced overall. If the average price was $30 and the average profit on concession was $20, that's $50 million more revenue. The Cubs payroll is about $30 million more than the Sox. Put taxes into the equation, and the payroll Reinsdorf sets makes a lot of sense. The White Sox will not suddenly draw 3 million fans, even if their payroll was $200 million and they went 162-0. The Cubs are adding 200 premium seats between the dugouts, and a cost of $200-250 per seat. It will make them 3.2 million extra a season. That would never fly on the south side. If anyone wanted to stay in business, they would not be throwing money around at players. It doesn't affect attendance. When the Sox signed Albert Belle they had the 4th highest payroll in baseball, it didn't inspire anyone to show up.

The Flubs put out a premium product. They charge more, spend more, and carefully cultivate their team's traditions (even the losing ones) so that the lemmings keep coming back, cash in hand, to spend more and more every year.

What any of this has to do with why Jerry Reinsdorf will never seriously compete for fan support-- let alone a genuine championship-- is totally beyond me. As for Belle, he signed him in November and pulled the plug on the season the following July. Obviously your definition of what constitutes being serious about competing is quite different than Cubs fans' who apparently you admire.

dickallen15
01-28-2004, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
The Flubs put out a premium product. They charge more, spend more, and carefully cultivate their team's traditions (even the losing ones) so that the lemmings keep coming back, cash in hand, to spend more and more every year.

What any of this has to do with why Jerry Reinsdorf will never seriously compete for fan support-- let alone a genuine championship-- is totally beyond me. As for Belle, he signed him in November and pulled the plug on the season the following July. Obviously your definition of what constitutes being serious about competing is quite different than Cubs fans' who apparently you admire.

Their "premium product" won 2 more games than the Sox last season and lost 95 the season before that. The people come out when they don't spend and lose. The Cubs lucked into Prior.Wrigley Field is a cash cow for some odd reason. Reinsdorf doesn't have this. He couldn't have this. He could have built Camden Yards and wouldn't have this. The location of the park was not his call, and the misconception about the neighborhood is his biggest problem. Its easy to spend someone else's money, but would anyone here risk $50 million on a season? I don't admire Cub fans at all. You say the Cubs spend money. Their idiot fans give them that money.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-28-2004, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
Their "premium product" won 2 more games than the Sox last season and lost 95 the season before that. The people come out when they don't spend and lose. The Cubs lucked into Prior.Wrigley Field is a cash cow for some odd reason. Reinsdorf doesn't have this. He couldn't have this. He could have built Camden Yards and wouldn't have this. The location of the park was not his call, and the misconception about the neighborhood is his biggest problem. Its easy to spend someone else's money, but would anyone here risk $50 million on a season? I don't admire Cub fans at all. You say the Cubs spend money. Their idiot fans give them that money.

Fine, but you still haven't explained what any of this has to do with the plight of the White Sox under Jerry Reinsdorf. Or are you buying into that line Vanderberg was sarcastically mocking, "This has always been a Cubs town?"

It's a great column because Vanderberg so effectively puts the torch to that silly notion.

jeremyb1
01-28-2004, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
The term "white flag" is about surrendering, not about salary.

A club has a payroll of 30 million with a number of arbitration elligible players and free agents. It will cost this club 95 million dollars, more than three times the club's current budget, to maintain the same level of talent currently on the roster. The team does not have 95 million so instead opts to double payroll to 60 million to keep some of the team's talent in tact. This team has just surrendered, raised the "white flag" because the level of talent dropped off? That's a completely illogical argument in my opinion.

Yes, white flag implies surrender and surrender is related to decreasing one's effort. If a team increases its payroll, it is increasing the resources it puts towards securing a goal and therefore by increasing effort you cannot be surrendering. By the same token by putting forth the same resources towards a cause, one cannot surreder or retreat. If an army loses half its men at a battle yet the remaining soldiers continue to put forth the same level of effort at the next battle, you would not say the army surrendered. Surrendering refers most directly to effort and intentions not end results.

For the White Sox to surrender they have to make next to no effort to win and they certainly have to make a lesser effort than the club has previously made. Since ownership is dedicating the exact same resources towards winning as last season, it can not be said that the club's effort is retreating.

TornLabrum
01-28-2004, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
A club has a payroll of 30 million with a number of arbitration elligible players and free agents. It will cost this club 95 million dollars, more than three times the club's current budget, to maintain the same level of talent currently on the roster. The team does not have 95 million so instead opts to double payroll to 60 million to keep some of the team's talent in tact. This team has just surrendered, raised the "white flag" because the level of talent dropped off? That's a completely illogical argument in my opinion.

Yes, white flag implies surrender and surrender is related to decreasing one's effort. If a team increases its payroll, it is increasing the resources it puts towards securing a goal and therefore by increasing effort you cannot be surrendering. By the same token by putting forth the same resources towards a cause, one cannot surreder or retreat. If an army loses half its men at a battle yet the remaining soldiers continue to put forth the same level of effort at the next battle, you would not say the army surrendered. Surrendering refers most directly to effort and intentions not end results.

For the White Sox to surrender they have to make next to no effort to win and they certainly have to make a lesser effort than the club has previously made. Since ownership is dedicating the exact same resources towards winning as last season, it can not be said that the club's effort is retreating.

How can you argue with that? My dad told me never to try to argue with someone who is delusional.

Brian26
01-28-2004, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Brian:

The two books that I have of Bob's are "Summer of 59'" and "Minnie and the Mick."
...
I enjoyed those books very, very much.

Lip

Thanks Lip! I'll check those out sometime soon. I always enjoy books on Sox history.

jeremyb1
01-29-2004, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
How can you argue with that? My dad told me never to try to argue with someone who is delusional.

Not when you can pretend to defeat their argument by insulting them instead. If my argument is so obviously illogical it should be easy for you to tear it to pieces, right?

Daver
01-29-2004, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Not when you can pretend to defeat their argument by insulting them instead. If my argument is so obviously illogical it should be easy for you to tear it to pieces, right?

Or it could simply be not worth the time........

gosox41
01-29-2004, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by soxfan26
Your point about how to take control away from JR is just as far fetched as ours is.

It is only because he's not doing anything negligent. If he were it would be easier to take him out of the Genera Partner's role then it would be for him to sell at his price.

So techinically you're right. But at least you didn't fall for that Ziff guy coming in here or actually be fooloish enough to believe Trump would buy this team any time soon.

Bob

Wsoxmike59
01-29-2004, 10:30 PM
Now, as for the article, they mention Bob has written 3 White Sox books. Does anyone know which ones he wrote and if they're any good?


I don't know if anybody has responded to this yet, so I'll take a stab at it.

Bob's first book was titled SOX....From Lane to Fain and Fisk to Zisk an excellent book where he interviews Sox players, mainly from the Go-Go era. He reminisces with them "Lip" style and catches up with them in their current life. (note the book was written around 1982 so it's dated)

His second book was Minnie and the Mick and it tells the epic battles for the AL pennant between the Sox and the Yankees during the Go-Go Sox era. Each season is nicely recapped.

His 3rd Sox book was '59 Summer of the Sox. A very detailed and interesting story about the season of 1959 when the Sox finally caught the NY Yankees and won their only pennant in the last 84 years!

soxfan26
01-30-2004, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
It is only because he's not doing anything negligent. If he were it would be easier to take him out of the Genera Partner's role then it would be for him to sell at his price.

So techinically you're right. But at least you didn't fall for that Ziff guy coming in here or actually be fooloish enough to believe Trump would buy this team any time soon.

Bob

I have no illusions about getting JR to sell the team, or to take control away from him because I understand it is just not going to happen any time soon.

But I do think that a negative public image, on top of being hated by his own fans helps. It helps to show people that the Sox don't just have "hard luck" but that these years of underachieving are caused by JR. I think that message needs to be continually conveyed to people who it effects. I think it effects more than just Sox fans, it effects the city, the state, development of the property around the Cell, and local business owners to name a few. If a prospective buyer were to emerge with a plan to not only buy the team, but develop some of the land around the cell to attract businesses, and to field a winning team it would be a proposal that could benefit more than just Sox fans in this city.

I know that JR has friends in this town, but the fact is that every businessman is going to be motivated by the bottom line. If a prospective buyer comes in with a plan to make everyone a whole lot of money and the fans are behind it, JR can be convinced to sell the team. So insert smooth talking billionaire here, and all our problems will be solved!

red faber
01-30-2004, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I don't see it as my personal interpretation of "white flag". The phrase implies surrendering, backing down, giving in completely. I fail to see how you can back down by keeping payroll at the same level. If you base the phrase "white flag" entirely on talent, you could theoretically require a team to up payroll 40 million dollars to avoid "white flagging" it. That simply doesn't make any sense. Even if the term can be used appropriately to signal a failure to increase payroll, the article should at least signify that usage. At no point in the article is it mentioned what the Sox payroll is this season compared to last season and that is misleading.

Our disagreement here seems to be that you think that as long as one agrees with the premise of an article, whatever follows is unimportant. I completely disagree. To be a good writer you must offer strong support for you arguments. If you make an argument that is correct but support it with inaccuracies and idiotic statements, you have not written an effective article. We both seem to agree that Takatsu is not a bad signing because he's foreign and that signing Colon to a 13 million a year contract is an incredible financial investment for any club not named the Yankees. I think that by making illogical and misleading statements thoughout his argument Vanderburg loses the credibility necessary to advance what I feel is an important argument.




i really don't understand how YOU can't call,trading your best players when you're only 3 1/2 games out of first place"white flaging it"yeah they kept payroll at the same level,but they didn't exactly try to increase payroll either.and at that time they didn't have to increase it by any 40 million to compete that year.

you've also got to ask yourself this,were the actions that reinsdork took that year the actions of a person who thought that his team had a chance to win,absolutely not.even though they did have a chance to win.and what hurts is the fact that if they had added some more parts they probably could have won the division that year.because cleveland wasn't exactly kicking major ass that year anyway.and they wouldn't have had to break the bank to get those extra parts either.

you can try to rationalize what he did all you want to,but the truth is by taking the actions he took,he truly did give up..

bouldersox
02-03-2004, 07:32 PM
Blow off the bottom third of vanderberg's ramblings.

The top 2/3rds is what interests me.

YES!!! All it would take is a new owner who understood that this used to be a Sox-town. And the ONLY reason it isn't (somebody challenge me on this) is Reinsdorf.

The upper deck isn't any steeper than '94. Thank god, somebody finally decided to point that out!

The Cubs suck! They always did. They always will. They will never win! Let the tourists and out of work bums fill their kitty litter box stadium.

Most baseball fans (not just Sox fans) condemn Reinsdorf for pushing for the strike season, when we had one of our very BEST shots!

The white flag trade was the final straw. That is the way that Reinsdorf is going to manage payroll and his team's chances.

How do we convince Jerry to sell. THIS IS THE ANSWER, BOYS!!!