PDA

View Full Version : Reinsdorf on 670 "The Score" at 2:05


ericiii
04-09-2004, 02:16 PM
I'm not sure I am going to be able to listen. I have a meeting planned at 2, so can someone post the details?

Hangar18
04-09-2004, 02:22 PM
SOMEBODY!!! if someone happens to call in, and get to ask him something, ASK WHY THEIR REVENUE IS 124 Million, and are SPENDING 68 MILLION ON THE TEAM. Inexcusable

cheeses_h_rice
04-09-2004, 02:27 PM
Hangar, not to undermine your point, but you *do* know that there are other expenses besides payroll to run the Sox organization, right?

Revenue isn't income, in other words.

poorme
04-09-2004, 02:30 PM
This just confirms there is some serious fence-mending going on between the SCORE and the SOX.

bennyw41
04-09-2004, 02:50 PM
Good, maybe they can fire murph then.

CubKilla
04-09-2004, 03:04 PM
:reinsy

"I'm poor!"

"I'll field a competitive team when the Sox fans sell-out every game!"

"Don't like the product on the field Sox fans, blame YOURSELVES!"

"The renovations are incredible. Sox fans should be exstatic that I found a dope..... ummmmm..... investor smart enough to dump millions into my, "Mistake by the Lake"..... well, sort of by the Lake."

"I only raised prices on parking, most tickets, and concessions to remain competitive for the AL Central Crown. Don't let that lack of offseason activity fool you. I'll retool for the '04 playoffs in July as long as the Sox are less than 3 games out of first. Otherwise, Maggs and everyone else goes to the highest bidder!"

"KW is a genius. PURE GENIUS!"

There's your Reinsy synopsis before the interview even starts.

jabrch
04-09-2004, 03:08 PM
North : "How did you cope with opening day"

JR : hard to lose - shocked, stunned. Yesterday was ok - lost to a great pitcher, great pitching defeats great hitting.

jabrch
04-09-2004, 03:09 PM
Hood: Ozzie? I didn't want him. What did you do in the process?

JR : I could have vetoed it - but I didn;'t. KW is right - Ozzie will be a good manager.

jabrch
04-09-2004, 03:10 PM
North: Ballpark renovations? - why not put money into players?
JR: Stadium authority wouldn't let us sell the name and put the money in players.

We are building a stadium with the ambience that the fans want.

More things next year - unsure - have a great list. people will enjoy the park.

jabrch
04-09-2004, 03:12 PM
North: You weren't mad at me about the Griff joke? It was harmless

JR: I wasn't mad at you. It wasn't funny, but I wasn't mad at you.

poorme
04-09-2004, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
North: You weren't mad at me about the Griff joke? It was harmless

JR: I wasn't mad at you. It wasn't funny, but I wasn't mad at you.


Man, you can bet somebody in the Sox organization paid the price for that one.

jabrch
04-09-2004, 03:13 PM
JR: We had something that would have gone done right before opening day, but someone on another team got injured.

North: Who?

JR: I am not gonna tell you that.

Hood: I thought you'd share with us on Good Friday

jabrch
04-09-2004, 03:14 PM
Hood: Did you make money last year? Why did you cut payroll?

JR: We were 4th of 5th in the AL in payroll.

jabrch
04-09-2004, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by poorme
Man, you can bet somebody in the Sox organization paid the price for that one.

Hawk

sas1974
04-09-2004, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
JR: We had something that would have gone done right before opening day, but someone on another team got injured.

Very mysterious. Could it have been Jr.?

jabrch
04-09-2004, 03:16 PM
JR: I wouldn't bet against us resigning Magglio

We would still like to sign him - but he is going to want to test FA. if he wants to come in and make a deal, we'd love to.

I am hoping to work something out.

On the "Colon Money", we would have ended up short somewhere else had Colon taken the 12mm.

jabrch
04-09-2004, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by sas1974
Very mysterious. Could it have been Jr.?

No - he says no Griff ever.

jabrch
04-09-2004, 03:17 PM
North: is Julio Cruz still being paid?
JR: 12 more years!

jabrch
04-09-2004, 03:18 PM
North: Hunter is on the DL. Are you happy?
JR: NO
Hood: come on Jerry

all three start laughing hysterically

sas1974
04-09-2004, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
No - he says no Griff ever.

Hopefully that will put those rumors to rest. We did deal w/ the Mets, maybe Al Lieter(sp?) before he took one off the face?

jabrch
04-09-2004, 03:19 PM
JR: Sox fans need to stop worrying about the Cubs. We are the American League ballclub here in Chicago - the fans shouldn't worry about the Cubs.

neighborhood is great - and it will help us in the near future.

Fridaythe13thJason
04-09-2004, 03:19 PM
He told Sox fans to get over the Cubs. Good idea.

poorme
04-09-2004, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
JR: We had something that would have gone done right before opening day, but someone on another team got injured.

North: Who?

JR: I am not gonna tell you that.

Hood: I thought you'd share with us on Good Friday

guys that come to mind: Hairston, Nixon, Nomar...that dodgers prospect.

iwannago
04-09-2004, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Hood: Did you make money last year? Why did you cut payroll?

JR: We were 4th of 5th in the AL in payroll.


I really don't believe the Sox (White that is) were 4th or 5th in payroll in the AL, even if that was true isn't Chicago the third biggest drawing area in the AL should we not be at least 3rd?

anewman35
04-09-2004, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
JR: We had something that would have gone done right before opening day, but someone on another team got injured.


Mark Prior?

jabrch
04-09-2004, 03:20 PM
North: Is Steinbrenner a good thing for baseball?
JR: Not good when one or two teams have more chips to play with than other teams. NFL/NBA good - MLB has problems.

jabrch
04-09-2004, 03:23 PM
Scottie Pippen talk - Pippen doesn't want a settlement - wants his $. Won't retire.

that's a wrap.

CWSGuy406
04-09-2004, 03:30 PM
Sorry, that was a crappy interview. All questions asked were pretty soft - why weren't these asked:


Why did ticket prices go up?

They should have pursued the Colon non-signing more - why wasn't that money put into other FAs?

Why did certain players get certain deals (Schoen, Valentin)?

Why weren't certain players in FA pursued?

poorme
04-09-2004, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by CWSGuy406
Sorry, that was a crappy interview. All questions asked were pretty soft -

Probably part of the agreement.

34 Inch Stick
04-09-2004, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by iwannago
I really don't believe the Sox (White that is) were 4th or 5th in payroll in the AL, even if that was true isn't Chicago the third biggest drawing area in the AL should we not be at least 3rd?

I bet they were 4th or 5th if you look at players yearly salaries who were on the team at the end of the season. However, they paid 0 of Alomar and Everett's salaries when they took them on. A big payroll paid by other teams...just the way JR likes it.

anewman35
04-09-2004, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by iwannago
I really don't believe the Sox (White that is) were 4th or 5th in payroll in the AL, even if that was true isn't Chicago the third biggest drawing area in the AL should we not be at least 3rd?

"Third biggest drawing area"? I'm really not sure how you would measure that. Chicago is the third largest city, but it's split at least in half with the Cubs, and I'd say probably at least 75% of the money and fans go to them...

iwannago
04-09-2004, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
I bet they were 4th or 5th if you look at players yearly salaries who were on the team at the end of the season. However, they paid 0 of Alomar and Everett's salaries when they took them on. A big payroll paid by other teams...just the way JR likes it.

That sounds like Arthur Andersen type of accounting.

iwannago
04-09-2004, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
"Third biggest drawing area"? I'm really not sure how you would measure that. Chicago is the third largest city, but it's split at least in half with the Cubs, and I'd say probably at least 75% of the money and fans go to them...

New York is first 2 teams, LA is second two teams, than Chicago.

MisterB
04-09-2004, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
"Third biggest drawing area"? I'm really not sure how you would measure that. Chicago is the third largest city, but it's split at least in half with the Cubs, and I'd say probably at least 75% of the money and fans go to them...

Going by market size and shares of those markets, the teams that would be expected to beat the Sox in revenue are:

Yankees
Mets
Dodgers
Angels
Red Sox
Phillies
Orioles

There may be 1 or 2 others, but that's the obvious ones.

jabrch
04-09-2004, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by poorme
Probably part of the agreement.

In fact, after the interview, North said that he "wasn't going to ask a question that he knew Jerry wouldn't answer."

Hangar18
04-09-2004, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
JR: We had something that would have gone done right before opening day, but someone on another team got injured.

North: Who?

JR: I am not gonna tell you that.

Hood: I thought you'd share with us on Good Friday

Heres a Hint. It was Kelly Wunsch for Mark Bellhorn.
but Nomar got hurt .........................Wouldve got me to Renew.

Man Soo Lee
04-09-2004, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by poorme
guys that come to mind: Hairston, Nixon, Nomar...that dodgers prospect.

Hairston/Roberts is a possibility. Maybe Anaheim was willing to trade a RH reliever before Brendan Donnelly got hurt.


Originally posted by iwannago
I really don't believe the Sox (White that is) were 4th or 5th in payroll in the AL

JR was defending the 2004 payroll, saying that it had increased from last year and was 4th or 5th in the AL. Based on the figures at Dugout Dollars (http://dugoutdollars.blogspot.com/), it looks like 5th is right.

Hangar18
04-09-2004, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
JR: Sox fans need to stop worrying about the Cubs. We are the American League ballclub here in Chicago - the fans shouldn't worry about the Cubs.


" ......sox fans need to Fill My Pockets some more and not worry about them beating me at the Gate, and in the Headlines. Its not like their payroll is $90 Million dollars, geez people, calm yourselves"

Dadawg_77
04-09-2004, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Heres a Hint. It was Kelly Wunsch for Mark Bellhorn.
but Nomar got hurt .........................Wouldve got me to Renew.


That would have been a good trade.

soltrain21
04-09-2004, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
That would have been a good trade.


Yeah, wonder if it will happen after Nomar comes back?

Hangar18
04-09-2004, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by soltrain21
Yeah, wonder if it will happen after Nomar comes back?

No way......Nomar injurie issues will keep Bellhorn over there.
By The Way ...............This was the "big deal" Reinsdorf was
alluding to. I just found out from a "source" earlier today, and then funny that JR mentioned that. I dont know how big a deal this wouldve been for us, but the "trade" was about to go down (the RedSox supposedly were the ones instigating this deal) Kelly Wunsch to the RedSox for Mark Bellhorn.
but then Nomar got hurt.

duke of dorwood
04-09-2004, 06:53 PM
This interview was done to spite Mariotti

iwannago
04-09-2004, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by MisterB
Going by market size and shares of those markets, the teams that would be expected to beat the Sox in revenue are:

Yankees
Mets
Dodgers
Angels
Red Sox
Phillies
Orioles

There may be 1 or 2 others, but that's the obvious ones.

I don't agree that the Baltimore, Boston, or Philadelphia markets are bigger than Chicago. Do you think every thing in the East is a big market. The White Sox have a great market they are just not getting market share.

gosox41
04-09-2004, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Heres a Hint. It was Kelly Wunsch for Mark Bellhorn.
but Nomar got hurt .........................Wouldve got me to Renew.


Should that be in teal?

Bob

Foulke You
04-10-2004, 02:40 AM
Why would we want Bellhorn? I'm fine with Crede and Valentin on the left side of the infield and I'll take my chances with Uribe/Harris over Bellhorn any day. Please elaborate on why trading one of our most dependable lefty relievers for a career .228 hitter is good for the Sox?

MisterB
04-10-2004, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by iwannago
I don't agree that the Baltimore, Boston, or Philadelphia markets are bigger than Chicago. Do you think every thing in the East is a big market. The White Sox have a great market they are just not getting market share.

The Sox have (roughly) half of a market with a 9M+ population. Boston, Philly and Baltimore are single team markets with populations ranging from 5 to 7+ million.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-10-2004, 09:08 AM
I think it is getting rather silly with all these theories about the relative size of the Chicago market the Sox must share. It makes *no* difference.

Metropolitan Chicago is the third largest market in the country. It is also the largest market (by far) in the Midwest. By a wide margin it is the most affluent market in the Midwest with more per capita income than anyplace between the coasts. When somebody starts crying about "small markets,"
like this "somebody" for example ------> :tool

they are talking about cow pastures like Milwaukee, far smaller and far less affluent than Chicago.

Besides New York and L.A., there is no market better suited for supporting professional sports teams than Chicago. Period .

If the Sox fail to gain "market share" it is only because their closest competitor is doing a better job marketing their team. We can bitch bitch bitch about why that is, but clearly the problem has become far more acute the past 24 years, apologies to the delusional Rich Lindberg who repeatedly asserts it is the paying customers' fault, not management's. He only reveals his own ignorance on the subject when he puts such sentiments into print.

The Sox are #2 because a miserable string of owners has mismanaged the franchise for most of 80 years. The best thing the Sox have going for them is the size and affluence of their local market. If MLB ever instituted a system where local TV/Radio and gate receipts were shared equally (like the NFL's) you can kiss good-bye the Chicago White Sox. They might as well play their games in Green Bay and collect their revenue sharing checks, because market size won't matter anymore.

So in summary, place the blame for our plight where it ought to be: Sox management. And be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

Green Bay White Sox.

voodoochile
04-10-2004, 09:33 AM
Hey JR - what's the Sox payroll rank THIS season?

Mickster
04-10-2004, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
No way......Nomar injurie issues will keep Bellhorn over there.
By The Way ...............This was the "big deal" Reinsdorf was
alluding to. I just found out from a "source" earlier today, and then funny that JR mentioned that. I dont know how big a deal this wouldve been for us, but the "trade" was about to go down (the RedSox supposedly were the ones instigating this deal) Kelly Wunsch to the RedSox for Mark Bellhorn.
but then Nomar got hurt.

Hust can't see the use Boston would have with Wunsch. We all know that Kelly is awesome, has like the 3rd best BA against L or R batters in MLB, but...Boston's pen is loaded. Just doesn't make sense, imho. It would be similar to the sox going out to try and trade for a LF or RF when we have Maggs and CLee. :?:

I could have seen a deal being made for the Dodger's Jackson, who, by the way, was "injured" prior to Opening day.

Lip Man 1
04-10-2004, 02:52 PM
If true, this 'deal' makes no sense to me. Granted anybody would be better then the dead ass duo of Harris / Uribe but why would you trade one of the few quality relief pitchers you have on the club? has anybody taken a good look at the right handed relief pitchers the Sox have on the roster?

This bullpen is awful....yet they were willing to trade Wunsch?

I literally piss in my pants every time a right hander comes in out of the pen. Collectively it may be the worst the Sox have had in ten years (and the pen was pretty awful in 96 when they set the major league record, since broken, for the most blown save opportunities...)

Where's Tony Castillo, Larry Thomas and Matt Karchner when you need them?

Lip

joecrede
04-10-2004, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
If true, this 'deal' makes no sense to me. Granted anybody would be better then the dead ass duo of Harris / Uribe but why would you trade one of the few quality relief pitchers you have on the club? has anybody taken a good look at the right handed relief pitchers the Sox have on the roster?

This bullpen is awful....yet they were willing to trade Wunsch?

Wunsch has appeared in 209 games, pitching 151 innings in 4 years. If you can upgrade a middle infield spot it's more than worth the 30 innings Wunsch is likely to throw.

Unregistered
04-10-2004, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I literally piss in my pants every time a right hander comes in out of the pen. Damn, Lip... it's gonna be a messy season. :o: Hopefully the 'pen will be in better shape than your pants.

Lip Man 1
04-11-2004, 12:12 AM
Joe:

I'd rather have Wunsch pitching those "30" innings then Takatsu, Adkins or Cotts.

Might mean the difference between winning the 'Comedy Central' Division.

Lip

kermittheefrog
04-11-2004, 01:37 AM
I don't buy the Wunsch/Bellhorn rumor. While I wouldn't be shocked if Theo Epstein had some modest interest in Wunsch, I just don't see Williams having an interest in Bellhorn. Virtually all of Kenny's acquisitions in the past have been guys he's been familiar with from head to head competition or guys who impressed scouts in the minors. Remember Kenny doesn't believe in looking at the numbers. Bellhorn has never impressed scouts and hasn't seen much time in the AL.

Dan H
04-11-2004, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by UICJason
He told Sox fans to get over the Cubs. Good idea.

No, this isn't a good quote. Shows he still doesn't understand Sox fans and show he still has that condescending attitude.

soxnut
04-11-2004, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Dan H
No, this isn't a good quote. Shows he still doesn't understand Sox fans and show he still has that condescending attitude.

No, it is a good idea. Support your own team and stop having insecurities.

Lip Man 1
04-11-2004, 02:29 PM
Soxnut:

Here's a better idea...have the owner start spending his hoards of collected cash and win something so that the other team is meaningless.

Lip

soxnut
04-12-2004, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Soxnut:

Here's a better idea...have the owner start spending his hoards of collected cash and win something so that the other team is meaningless.

Lip

Sure spend more money, but still don't be so concerned about the other team. It just makes Sox fans look so insecure.

CWSGuy406
04-12-2004, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by Foulke You
Why would we want Bellhorn? I'm fine with Crede and Valentin on the left side of the infield and I'll take my chances with Uribe/Harris over Bellhorn any day. Please elaborate on why trading one of our most dependable lefty relievers for a career .228 hitter is good for the Sox?

Let me give it a shot - I think that Bellhorn, while crappy against righties, is solid against lefties. Plus he is like a Tony Graffanino, he can play multiple infield positions as well as the corner outfield positions, I think. He also can get on base - last season with the Cubs (before the trade), he only hit .209, but had an OBP of 341. In 2001, which was his better year, he had an OBP of about 375.

A guy who can get on base, play multiple positions, and can fill in solidly and do a decent job at the plate and on D vs. a guy who faces one hitter, or two, and then leaves. While Wunsch does a good job at what he does, I hope Kenny eventually pulls the trigger on this one. Who knows, maybe Bellhorn can still get it together, and we'd have a solid bench with he along with Gload, Perez, Uribe, etc.

gosox41
04-12-2004, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Soxnut:

Here's a better idea...have the owner start spending his hoards of collected cash and win something so that the other team is meaningless.

Lip

Again, you're assuming he has hoards of collected cash from owning this tam. He has hoards of cash no doubt about it, but it hasn't come from owning the Sox.


Bob

Dan H
04-12-2004, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by soxnut
No, it is a good idea. Support your own team and stop having insecurities.

It has nothing to do with insecurities or supporting your team It has to do with an ownership that doesn't understand its own fan base. And like it or not, the Cubs are the main competition for the Sox even if they are in the other league. As far as supporting the team, give me a team to support, not a team that is allergic to the World Series.

Lip Man 1
04-12-2004, 02:42 PM
Bob says: "Again, you're assuming he has hoards of collected cash from owning this tam. He has hoards of cash no doubt about it, but it hasn't come from owning the Sox."

And the difference is what? It's still in good ole Uncle Jerry's bank account isn't it? Why is it that good ole Uncle Jerry will flush money down the toilet on crappy Bulls players but won't take steps to guarantee the viability of his baseball franchise? He's in a life or death struggle with a team in direct compitition with his baseball team and acts like it's no big deal.

Lip

Randar68
04-12-2004, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Bob says: "Again, you're assuming he has hoards of collected cash from owning this tam. He has hoards of cash no doubt about it, but it hasn't come from owning the Sox."

And the difference is what? It's still in good ole Uncle Jerry's bank account isn't it? Why is it that good ole Uncle Jerry will flush money down the toilet on crappy Bulls players but won't take steps to guarantee the viability of his baseball franchise? He's in a life or death struggle with a team in direct compitition with his baseball team and acts like it's no big deal.

Lip

The Bulls have been in the top 5 in NBA attendance every year since the dynasty ended. WAKE UP.

soxnut
04-12-2004, 03:15 PM
I don't think the Sox are in a life or death struggle with the Cubs. I think some Sox fans sphincters are getting too tight.

rahulsekhar
04-12-2004, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Bob says: "Again, you're assuming he has hoards of collected cash from owning this tam. He has hoards of cash no doubt about it, but it hasn't come from owning the Sox."

And the difference is what? It's still in good ole Uncle Jerry's bank account isn't it? Why is it that good ole Uncle Jerry will flush money down the toilet on crappy Bulls players but won't take steps to guarantee the viability of his baseball franchise? He's in a life or death struggle with a team in direct compitition with his baseball team and acts like it's no big deal.

Lip

Are you serious? A brief list of things wrong with your statements:

1) Bulls consistently sell out
2) NBA has a salary cap, which the Bulls are not exceeding, and when thet did it was for a true contender, and they competed with other teams with similar financial resources & constraints - i.e. a level playing field
3) Is it really your contention that owners should subsidize teams from their own pockets? That's ludicrous and is perfect example of why baseball's financial system is out of whack - when some teams need to run in the red to compete with others that do not need to do so.

Lip - you willing to take out an extra mortgage and donate it to the Sox if it went to re-sign Maggs? Why not?

jcirish85
04-12-2004, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Heres a Hint. It was Kelly Wunsch for Mark Bellhorn.
but Nomar got hurt .........................Wouldve got me to Renew.
He's right, Terry Francona, the manager, really wanted wunsch and they actually sent scouts to look at wunsch but he pitched poorly that day and epstein didnt want to pull the trigger on the trade. i dont think it was because of injuries.

voodoochile
04-12-2004, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by jcirish85
He's right, Terry Francona, the manager, really wanted wunsch and they actually sent scouts to look at wunsch but he pitched poorly that day and epstein didnt want to pull the trigger on the trade. i dont think it was because of injuries.

Or it might have been Wunsch's injury they were referring to...

jcirish85
04-12-2004, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Or it might have been Wunsch's injury they were referring to...
no it was because when the scouts went to see him, he got hit hard at was topping out at 79 mph. coincidentally, he was injured later in spring training.

Lip Man 1
04-12-2004, 10:12 PM
Rash says: "you willing to take out an extra mortgage and donate it to the Sox if it went to re-sign Maggs? Why not?

Because the Sox have plenty of money to do it themselves or are you forgetting about the ball park built for them and the sweetheart leases connected with it?

My point was it's STILL good ole Uncle Jerry's money...doesn't matter wheather he's getting it from the Bulls, the Sox, his business investments, whatever he can steal...it's still his in a bank account.

When you got city / state help in building your new 'ball mall' and are in charge of a public trust not a personal business entity, your damn right, if he has to run in the red, he's morally obligated to do it.

If this runs against his grain, his morality or his ethics then get the hell out of sports.

Lip

Randar68
04-12-2004, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
My point was it's STILL good ole Uncle Jerry's money...doesn't matter wheather he's getting it from the Bulls, the Sox, his business investments, whatever he can steal...it's still his in a bank account.


You obviously have no experience running any kind of business. I wouldn't trust you with my nephew's lemonade stand.

voodoochile
04-12-2004, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
You obviously have no experience running any kind of business. I wouldn't trust you with my nephew's lemonade stand.

Really? So you disagree that JR should be willing to operate slightly in the red to field a winner?

What if it meant building a business for future fans to enjoy?

Your nephews lemonade stand can succeed today or it can build a future that will be around for a long time. WalMart has millions of customers today because they were willing to take losses. In fact they did it so much they got accused of predatory pricing. But, they are one of the largest retailers in the country and doing volume business to make a profit.

JR has never once taken that philosophy for more than half a season. You don't build customer good will by always looking to the bottom line. It's just that simple. A quality product will always make money in the long run...

Randar68
04-13-2004, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Really? So you disagree that JR should be willing to operate slightly in the red to field a winner?

What if it meant building a business for future fans to enjoy?

Your nephews lemonade stand can succeed today or it can build a future that will be around for a long time. WalMart has millions of customers today because they were willing to take losses. In fact they did it so much they got accused of predatory pricing. But, they are one of the largest retailers in the country and doing volume business to make a profit.

JR has never once taken that philosophy for more than half a season. You don't build customer good will by always looking to the bottom line. It's just that simple. A quality product will always make money in the long run...

An individual would be out of their gourd to pull money from their own pocket and personal savings, and invest it into a losing proposition of which they only own a fraction, and expect anything but losses.

If they wish to borrow money from MLB, or some private investor under the guise of ownership being tied to it, fine. Nothing is free in business. The White Sox are operated as an independent business, not as a personal playground like Cuban, Hicks, etc. The Bulls investors aren't 100% overlapping with the Sox investors and so on.

It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure it out, but it certainly seems to take some kind of rational realism Lip is sorely lacking.

jabrch
04-13-2004, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
When you got city / state help in building your new 'ball mall' and are in charge of a public trust not a personal business entity, your damn right, if he has to run in the red, he's morally obligated to do it.

Lip

Lip, that makes no sense. Can you name owners that run at a loss? Cuban makes money hand over fist. Steinbrenner makes money on the yanks. I don't know of many owners, in fact, I can name one, that run at a deficit.

JR is legally obligated to be fiscally responsible to his partners in the White Sox before he is morally obligated to you and I.

gosox41
04-13-2004, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Bob says: "Again, you're assuming he has hoards of collected cash from owning this tam. He has hoards of cash no doubt about it, but it hasn't come from owning the Sox."

And the difference is what? It's still in good ole Uncle Jerry's bank account isn't it? Why is it that good ole Uncle Jerry will flush money down the toilet on crappy Bulls players but won't take steps to guarantee the viability of his baseball franchise? He's in a life or death struggle with a team in direct compitition with his baseball team and acts like it's no big deal.

Lip

Smart business. That's why. He has a partnership with the Bulls. It's a completely different business then with the Sox. The fact is the Bulls are still a high drawing team and make money. If anything it shows that JR is willing to spend when the money is there. I f I were a Bulls owner Iwho didn't own the Sox 'd be pissed if JR started spedning my money on the Sox. Just like I'd be pissed as an owner of either team if JR took profits from either team and used it to buy the Sun Times. THe Bulls moeny is the Bulls moeny. The Sox money is the Sox money. JR's personal finances are his personal estate. Most business owners that have partners or shareholders don't take money out of their own personal pockets. Why shoud he be different? Because he owes it to us? Please.


Bob

gosox41
04-13-2004, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Rash says: "you willing to take out an extra mortgage and donate it to the Sox if it went to re-sign Maggs? Why not?

Because the Sox have plenty of money to do it themselves or are you forgetting about the ball park built for them and the sweetheart leases connected with it?

My point was it's STILL good ole Uncle Jerry's money...doesn't matter wheather he's getting it from the Bulls, the Sox, his business investments, whatever he can steal...it's still his in a bank account.

When you got city / state help in building your new 'ball mall' and are in charge of a public trust not a personal business entity, your damn right, if he has to run in the red, he's morally obligated to do it.

If this runs against his grain, his morality or his ethics then get the hell out of sports.

Lip

Lip, I understand why you're a writer and not a business owner.

As for the ballpark being built of public funds, why not blame the politicians for that to? Ultimately it comes down to the people of Illinois who voted these guys in. How many of those polticians that were pro building a new Comiskey were not reelected the next election?

Fans didn't seem to upset, even considering most of this town is Cub fans.

Bob

Lip Man 1
04-13-2004, 02:33 PM
Bob:

As if often the case we'll have to agree to disagree. This reminds me of a cartoon I saw during the 94 labor impasse.

The first frame showed an overweight owner looking at a bunch of fans who were angry over the shutdown of baseball. The owner says "but baseball is a business!"

The second frame shows the same owner sitting before a group of congressmen. The owner is saying "but baseball is a sport!"

The point being you can make it out to whatever you want to.

I realize baseball is a business but these franchises while in a business fact belong to their owners, they also belong to the city where they reside. Most of these franchises have been around for 50, 75, over 100 years. Longer then ANY of these owners. That also should count for something.

We helped pay for what good ole Uncle Jerry has, we should be entitled to a cut. For me that means winning something important before I drop dead.

Lip

rahulsekhar
04-13-2004, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Rash says: [B]"you willing to take out an extra mortgage and donate it to the Sox if it went to re-sign Maggs? Why not?

Because the Sox have plenty of money to do it themselves or are you forgetting about the ball park built for them and the sweetheart leases connected with it?



While I agree that the Sox should spend all available $$$ to improving the on-field product, I do not necessarily agree that they are somehow "hoarding cash" - at least not significant cash(as I believe you said earlier in this thread). Nowhere have I seen any comments to that effect from anyone with knowledge of or meetings with ownership & management.


My point was it's STILL good ole Uncle Jerry's money...doesn't matter wheather he's getting it from the Bulls, the Sox, his business investments, whatever he can steal...it's still his in a bank account.

When you got city / state help in building your new 'ball mall' and are in charge of a public trust not a personal business entity, your damn right, if he has to run in the red, he's morally obligated to do it.

Well, here we disagree 100%. I do not believe that ANY owner should be forced to dip into their personal pockets longterm to support a franchise (note: this is different from a short term investment designed to net out or be positive-NPV over a 3-5 year time frame). As for the "moral obligation", there is none. He has a much higher obligation to the other investors in his other businesses (i.e. other Bulls owners, etc.), for whom he has a fiduciary duty to protect their investments. If JR were skimming from the Sox to support the Bulls, I'd be extremely upset as a Sox investor (if I was one). The reverse holds true as well.


If this runs against his grain, his morality or his ethics then get the hell out of sports.

Lip

The fact that this is your personal morality in this matter does not mean that JR has to subscribe to it.

Bottom line: baseball is a business. The government/public invest in that business as a matter of course in the interests of the city, and contracts are negotiated accordingly. The same is done with a number of other businesses (mostly in the form of tax incentives). None of the parties have any obligation other than to fulfill the terms of the contract. There is especially no obligation to subsidize anything from the personal pockets of ownership.

Randar68
04-13-2004, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
While I agree that the Sox should spend all available $$$ to improving the on-field product, I do not necessarily agree that they are somehow "hoarding cash" - at least not significant cash(as I believe you said earlier in this thread). Nowhere have I seen any comments to that effect from anyone with knowledge of or meetings with ownership & management.



Well, here we disagree 100%. I do not believe that ANY owner should be forced to dip into their personal pockets longterm to support a franchise (note: this is different from a short term investment designed to net out or be positive-NPV over a 3-5 year time frame). As for the "moral obligation", there is none. He has a much higher obligation to the other investors in his other businesses (i.e. other Bulls owners, etc.), for whom he has a fiduciary duty to protect their investments. If JR were skimming from the Sox to support the Bulls, I'd be extremely upset as a Sox investor (if I was one). The reverse holds true as well.



The fact that this is your personal morality in this matter does not mean that JR has to subscribe to it.

Bottom line: baseball is a business. The government/public invest in that business as a matter of course in the interests of the city, and contracts are negotiated accordingly. The same is done with a number of other businesses (mostly in the form of tax incentives). None of the parties have any obligation other than to fulfill the terms of the contract. There is especially no obligation to subsidize anything from the personal pockets of ownership.


Very well said, indeed.

rahulsekhar
04-13-2004, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

I realize baseball is a business but these franchises while in a business fact belong to their owners, they also belong to the city where they reside. Most of these franchises have been around for 50, 75, over 100 years. Longer then ANY of these owners. That also should count for something.

Analogy: BankOne has been in Chicago a long time. Do they have a responsibility to the city to stay here? Nope. Same with Boeing. They got a ton of incentives to come here, with arrangements for length of stay. As long as they live up to those, they've fulfilled their end.



We helped pay for what good ole Uncle Jerry has, we should be entitled to a cut. For me that means winning something important before I drop dead.

Lip

You helped pay for it and you get a team that stays here and play competitive ball in return. Titles are guaranteed to no one. Not even if you spend a ton of cash. Would you say the Red Sox have won anything meaningful recently? So do they owe something to their fans to spend even more than they do?

The Sox payroll seems to be in line with other teams comparing salaries, market sizes, etc. I'd like them to spend more, but I understand why they're not willing to do so. Especially since I don't think that Sox fans are as guaranteed to respond to success with attendance as you are. I think the team would have to run in the red for a few years before they'd see the effects, and that adds a significant amount of risk. An injury, a slump at the wrong time, etc and the fans would say "misspent $$$, mismanaged team, I'm not coming out". Then the payback is even longer and possibly non-existent.

rmusacch
04-13-2004, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by iwannago
I don't agree that the Baltimore, Boston, or Philadelphia markets are bigger than Chicago. Do you think every thing in the East is a big market. The White Sox have a great market they are just not getting market share.

He said based on market size and share of the market. Those markets may not be bigger but those teams have 100% of the market whereas the Sox have to share the Chicago market with the Cubs.

TornLabrum
04-13-2004, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Lip, that makes no sense. Can you name owners that run at a loss? Cuban makes money hand over fist. Steinbrenner makes money on the yanks. I don't know of many owners, in fact, I can name one, that run at a deficit.

JR is legally obligated to be fiscally responsible to his partners in the White Sox before he is morally obligated to you and I.

Jerry Colangelo?

Daver
04-13-2004, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Jerry Colangelo?

Don't tell that to Colangelo,he vehemtly denies the D-Backs being in any financial trouble whatsoever.

Lip Man 1
04-13-2004, 11:21 PM
Rahul;

Last time I looked nobody paid money to see any of the bank One employees, nobody cares if they 'won or lost' that day, nobody argues about whether or not the latest management move by Bank One is a good one.

The Chicago White Sox are not like Bank One, they are not like Jerry's Diner or Reinsdorf's Pet Emporium. They are not a business in the traditional sense of the word because nobody gives their heart and soul to Bank One etc. In fact MLB is a legalized monopoly which throws out all of the usual rules about business right from the get go.

Lip

jabrch
04-14-2004, 09:15 AM
Colangelo has run the Suns profitable for a very long time. He is not deliberately running the Dbacks at a deficit, if that happens to be the case. He did some things to remove contracts to try and reduce his payroll. It is one thing to temporarily accidentally get stuck running at a deficit. (I don't know that this is the case with the DBacks, but that's not Colangelo's philosophy, since he never did it with the Suns.)

But do you really think there are many owners (in this case, a junta of owners that make up the partnership, that would be willing to take 20mm out of their pockets to put into the team if they don't feel that there would be adequate return on that additional investment?

gosox41
04-14-2004, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Bob:

As if often the case we'll have to agree to disagree. This reminds me of a cartoon I saw during the 94 labor impasse.

The first frame showed an overweight owner looking at a bunch of fans who were angry over the shutdown of baseball. The owner says "but baseball is a business!"

The second frame shows the same owner sitting before a group of congressmen. The owner is saying "but baseball is a sport!"

The point being you can make it out to whatever you want to.

I realize baseball is a business but these franchises while in a business fact belong to their owners, they also belong to the city where they reside. Most of these franchises have been around for 50, 75, over 100 years. Longer then ANY of these owners. That also should count for something.

We helped pay for what good ole Uncle Jerry has, we should be entitled to a cut. For me that means winning something important before I drop dead.

Lip

Lip,

We may have paid for the park, but there's also a lot of other things we as tax payers pay for that probably don't effect us. Do you feel this strongly about the poltician's who approved this deal? Or the voters who voted them in office, even after they made this deal? JR negotiated with the state, you may call it stong arm. The state didn't have to agree to anything. In the scheme of life, losing a baseball team in a city that's 150 years old isn't the biggest deal in the world is it?



Bob

gosox41
04-14-2004, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Rahul;

Last time I looked nobody paid money to see any of the bank One employees, nobody cares if they 'won or lost' that day, nobody argues about whether or not the latest management move by Bank One is a good one.

The Chicago White Sox are not like Bank One, they are not like Jerry's Diner or Reinsdorf's Pet Emporium. They are not a business in the traditional sense of the word because nobody gives their heart and soul to Bank One etc. In fact MLB is a legalized monopoly which throws out all of the usual rules about business right from the get go.

Lip

Maybe no one pays to see Bank One employees, but don't underestimate the effect Bank One has on the community of Chicago. I know people at Bank One. I would say they spend a lot more time in a week devoting there time and effort while making some sacrifice personally because they probably do have a good job and have enough pride (heart) to see it done right.

On a side note, the fact that the bank is losing it's city HQ's and is going to probably have a few thousand layoffs here (or so I've read) has a much greater effect on the community then JR getting a new stadium built for him 13 years ago.



Bob

rahulsekhar
04-14-2004, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Rahul;

Last time I looked nobody paid money to see any of the bank One employees, nobody cares if they 'won or lost' that day, nobody argues about whether or not the latest management move by Bank One is a good one.

The Chicago White Sox are not like Bank One, they are not like Jerry's Diner or Reinsdorf's Pet Emporium. They are not a business in the traditional sense of the word because nobody gives their heart and soul to Bank One etc. In fact MLB is a legalized monopoly which throws out all of the usual rules about business right from the get go.

Lip

Starting off, I'm not in favor of MLB's congressional exemption. The point, however, was that simply because a business has been in Chicago for a long period of time does not make them somehow beholden to the area.

The contract between a ticketholder and the franchise is for entertainment in the form of a baseball game. There is no guarantee of winning. Fielding a consistently winning team can be seen as good business strategy (i.e. if you don't, you risk declining revenues in the future), but taking on significant additional risk to do so is not required.

Even if the team has an implicit responsibility to focus available resources towards providing a winning franchise, there is no such responsibility to run in the red for any significant length of time (or at all for that matter, despite how some of us might think it's a good long-term idea). While the investment for long term gains theory is a good one, it's one that has failed in many individual instances. As I said in an earlier post, there's no guarantee that spending gets you wins (although it significantly increases the chance of contending), and all it takes is an injury, slump, or any number of other factors outside of the team's control to turn an investment into a long-term loser, especially given the nature of Sox fans. While I don't like it, I can understand therefore why the team would spend to their ability and not beyond, as I believe the Sox are doing.

All of that said, I believe that this is one of those instances where we'll have to agree to disagree. The "moral imperative", is pretty much a philosophical difference that's unlikely to change on either side (even though I do enjoy the discussion).

Lip Man 1
04-14-2004, 01:18 PM
Rahul:

Agreed. You make your points very well... if I knew more about the business world perhaps I could offer a more concrete assessment but I don't.

My view of the Sox is based on being a fan for 43 seasons, being in the media (primarily television) for 25 seasons and my opinion that fans everywhere (except perhaps in New York) generally deserve better then what they are getting.

I dislike owners in any profession, have had bad experiences with them and as a rule don't trust them as far as I can throw any of them because in general (I agree this doesn't include all owners) they are concerned about one thing and one thing only...profit (at the expense of everything else including people.) Nothing wrong with making a profit but when profit turns to greed at the expense of people, then I have a serious issue with that.

Enjoy reading your points of view.

Lip

rahulsekhar
04-14-2004, 03:09 PM
Lip: I too enjoy the debates with you, it's nice to have an informed discussion on differing POVs. I guess my business background gives me more of an affinity towards ownership since I'm trained to look at return on investment, risk, etc. The people side of the business often plays into that, but is not the bottom line and is often what goes in a financial tradeoff. Therein lies my personal bias.

Anyway - regardless of our differences, it's nice to have a good discussion and even nicer to do so as the Sox are winning!