PDA

View Full Version : ownership's moment of truth


mediasblancas
06-12-2004, 02:56 AM
Put aside all other issues, for there are no other issues. The only thing that matters is what happens with Magglio's contract. This is a moment of truth for ownership.

Magglio must be re-signed. He is obviously an outstanding player. However, his profile as a person and competitor make him exemplary in the sport. A baseball franchise simply does not move certain personnel. Would Baltimore ever have seriously considered moving Ripken Jr. for instance? The Yankees Jeter? Magglio for the next five to six years in right field is the stuff of heroes. For a team that is largely a mid-market team that's essential.

The business model isn't that of NYY, ANA, CHC or LAD. Teams like the Sox have to build franchise players. They made this kind of investment in Frank. Albeit the Sox stingily hedged their bet with him. Now that Frank is all but the all-time statistical Sox in every category in the history of all Soxdom, we can conclude that it wasn't too bad a bet on ownership's part. Build the damn team around Ordonez, just like you built the team in the 90's around the Hurt, as painful as it sometimes has been.

Ownership should not even be putting Maggs through this gossipy, dirtying process. Make the deal and shut up. Stop with the media nonsense. Five year$75 sounds about right, and without alot of deferred this and that language. Please.

ROI is cool and all, but running a shoe factory, or a real estate business is not the same as running an organization oriented around people, the public and personnel development. Magglio is 30, he signed with the Sox when he was 17. He didn't get anything like a Borchard deal. What did it cost them to get him here from Venezuela? Five, ten grand, including air fare? At a certain point if you don't desire to reward an employee, a player, a person like this who represents probably the best the Sox and baseball can come up with along these lines then you are in the wrong business, and go away. Failure by management here should mean the end of the current ownership group.

pinwheels3530
06-12-2004, 03:35 AM
I have a feeling this ownership is going to fail in their moment of truth, they have a history of doing it! Why would thinks change now........ this is sad VERY sad :(: KEEP MAGGS TRADE BORCHARD OR REED!!!!!!!!!!!

rahulsekhar
06-12-2004, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by mediasblancas



Ownership should not even be putting Maggs through this gossipy, dirtying process. Make the deal and shut up. Stop with the media nonsense. Five year$75 sounds about right, and without alot of deferred this and that language. Please.



Are you nuts? $15mil/yr? So you want to pay Maggs more than Vlady - whos' arguably the best player in the game? Maggs is worth a bit less than $14, but the bottom line is that he seems to want to go on the market and see what he can get.

Your "sounds about right" sounds like you pulled it out of your butt. Why not 5yr/90mil? That sounds righter! Hey - whatever as long as they resign him, right?

gosox41
06-12-2004, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by mediasblancas
Put aside all other issues, for there are no other issues. The only thing that matters is what happens with Magglio's contract. This is a moment of truth for ownership.

Magglio must be re-signed. He is obviously an outstanding player. However, his profile as a person and competitor make him exemplary in the sport. A baseball franchise simply does not move certain personnel. Would Baltimore ever have seriously considered moving Ripken Jr. for instance? The Yankees Jeter? Magglio for the next five to six years in right field is the stuff of heroes. For a team that is largely a mid-market team that's essential.

The business model isn't that of NYY, ANA, CHC or LAD. Teams like the Sox have to build franchise players. They made this kind of investment in Frank. Albeit the Sox stingily hedged their bet with him. Now that Frank is all but the all-time statistical Sox in every category in the history of all Soxdom, we can conclude that it wasn't too bad a bet on ownership's part. Build the damn team around Ordonez, just like you built the team in the 90's around the Hurt, as painful as it sometimes has been.

Ownership should not even be putting Maggs through this gossipy, dirtying process. Make the deal and shut up. Stop with the media nonsense. Five year$75 sounds about right, and without alot of deferred this and that language. Please.

ROI is cool and all, but running a shoe factory, or a real estate business is not the same as running an organization oriented around people, the public and personnel development. Magglio is 30, he signed with the Sox when he was 17. He didn't get anything like a Borchard deal. What did it cost them to get him here from Venezuela? Five, ten grand, including air fare? At a certain point if you don't desire to reward an employee, a player, a person like this who represents probably the best the Sox and baseball can come up with along these lines then you are in the wrong business, and go away. Failure by management here should mean the end of the current ownership group.

While we're at it, who not sign the fan favorite PK to a contract extension for $10 mill per year?

Maybe that should be in teal.

I don't see why Magglio gets more then Vlad. If Magglio wants to stay heree, I think it's fair for him to accept Vlad type money (slightly less). Poor guy. How is he going ot make it oon $60 mill over 5 years after coming off a 3 year $30 mill. contract.

While it's nice to make all the money you can, do you think Magglio's life is going to change dramatically for anextra $5 mill? Remember, he says he is happy in Chicago. It's not like he's miserable here and in order for him to stay he'll need more cash. Doesn't happiness matter. This 'poor kid' stuff because he didn't get a big signing bonus when he was 17? Boo Hoo.

You can't let one player take a team hostage. Currently, Magglio's equivalent is Vlad. There's no reason to give him more money then Vlad.



Bob

samram
06-12-2004, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by mediasblancas
Ownership should not even be putting Maggs through this gossipy, dirtying process. Make the deal and shut up. Stop with the media nonsense. Five year$75 sounds about right, and without alot of deferred this and that language. Please.

ROI is cool and all, but running a shoe factory, or a real estate business is not the same as running an organization oriented around people, the public and personnel development.

5 years/ 1,000,000,000- that should get it done.

First, I'm not in Chicago, so I don't hear everything, but it seems like everytime KW is asked about it, he says he can't talk about the situation, so I don't see how ownership is putting him through anything.

Secondly, in an organization oriented around people, ROI is directly tied to the people- employees and customers. Maggs' performance, while very good, has not increased attendance. I don't know about the rest of the revenues, but overt interest in the team has not increased due to Maggs' presence.

I would love to see Maggs back, but the team can't make his salary 20% of payroll when the organization has depth at his position and there are several other holes that need to be or will need to be filled.

hose
06-12-2004, 10:38 AM
I am not buying into this "sign Maggs at any cost" talk.

If the Sox offer a fair market deal and Maggs turns it down its time to move on.

SEALgep
06-12-2004, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by hose
I am not buying into this "sign Maggs at any cost" talk.

If the Sox offer a fair market deal and Maggs turns it down its time to move on. Exactly, and the way it's been rumored, it sounds more like Maggs just wants to leave. You can't sign someone who has already made up their mind to leave. I hope that's not the case, but it appears that it is.

Mickster
06-12-2004, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Exactly, and the way it's been rumored, it sounds more like Maggs just wants to leave. You can't sign someone who has already made up their mind to leave. I hope that's not the case, but it appears that it is.

From what I have heard, the sox have offered maggs his 5 years at $70M. In fact, a "source" close to the sox (Per Joe Cowley) plainly stated that. The problem appears to be deferred money.

hose
06-12-2004, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Exactly, and the way it's been rumored, it sounds more like Maggs just wants to leave. You can't sign someone who has already made up their mind to leave. I hope that's not the case, but it appears that it is.

In the words of LaTroy "turkey neck" Hawkins the yellow jackals of the media probably will forget to mention that Maggs might not want to play on the south side.


:bkoch:
"what's that blow hole Hawkins saying now? , did he mention my name again?"

soxtalker
06-12-2004, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Exactly, and the way it's been rumored, it sounds more like Maggs just wants to leave. You can't sign someone who has already made up their mind to leave. I hope that's not the case, but it appears that it is.

Maggs has said that he wants to stay. The Sox have said that they want to sign him. The rumors seem to assume one side doesn't mean what they say publicly and is just posturing. Only problem is that we seem to have rumors that place the blame on the Sox or on Maggs, so it is a bit hard for me to glean any useful information from the rumors.

hose
06-12-2004, 10:57 AM
"Sox fans don't deserve Maggs playing for them"

http://espn.go.com/i/mlb/profiles/players/6138.jpg

Frank the Tank
06-12-2004, 11:02 AM
Maggs was signed as an unproven youngster from humble beginnings. If anything, he should be thanking us for giving him playing time and making his Major League dream possible. It seems very clear that Maggs just wants to move on. I think the 5 yr. / 70 MM offer already made is ridiculous. Does Maggs really think he is going to get this kind of money with another team? Let's see:

MVP Awards - 0
Batting Titles - 0
Gold Gloves - 0
All-Star appearances - 4

In fact, has he ever led the League in anything? He never hit over 40 home-runs, is an average fielder and has average speed. Not to mention coming off an injury can't help his value. He is a great guy and a consistent player, but he just isn't worth what he is seeking. If he moves on, so be it. I challenge anyone to give any valid reason to pay him 5yr./75 MM money.

SpringfldFan
06-12-2004, 11:25 AM
We are in America, so lets start thinking that way:

If Mags can make better money elsewhere, then he should go ahead - more power to him.

If the Sox can get get better value for $15mil by spending it on someone other then Mags, then they should go ahead - more power to *them*.



Simple, really.

SoxEd
06-12-2004, 11:42 AM
Do I want Maggs to stay? Yes.

Do I think the Sox should pay 'over the odds' for him? No.

But, do I think that they should be prepared to pay what the market says his value is? Yes.
i.e. I think that if he has an offer from another team that is more $ than the Sox have offered him, then JR should be prepared to match it - Maggs is a favourite of the fans', and it would show us that the franchise values its 'franchise players'.

Of course, the hard-nosed-businessman calculation should be 'can we get players that are more useful to us for the same price as he is asking?'. If we can, than they should go for them rather than keeping Maggs. Of course, those considerations need to be balanced against the 'propaganda' value of keeping Maggs.

I think that whether we keep Maggs, or sign other players instead, there is no way to please all of the fans all of the time. (Unless the move JR decides on means that the team wins next year's WS).

This is one instance where I feel sympathy for the predicament facing the Management. :o:

CubKilla
06-12-2004, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Mickster
The problem appears to be deferred money.

NO WAY!!!!!

Dan H
06-13-2004, 08:54 AM
We are in America, so lets start thinking that way:

If Mags can make better money elsewhere, then he should go ahead - more power to him.

If the Sox can get get better value for $15mil by spending it on someone other then Mags, then they should go ahead - more power to *them*.



Simple, really.
Who says the Sox will spend the $15 million on someone else? Will the team just bring up some minor leaguer and hope he comes through? Have the Sox ever shown they really re-invest in their own product?

I don't think the team should cave in to any demand. I do think it should do what it can to keep Maggs. If Ordonez should leave, you will see nothing but a gaping hole in right field.

And I don't go along with fans demeaning what Ordonez has done. Name me one other outfielder in Sox history who has put up the numbers Maggs has. You can't.

The main point is that the Sox have to face up to the fact that building a team costs money. If they don't have the money, or don't want to spend it, it is time to sell.

SpringfldFan
06-13-2004, 10:08 AM
Who says the Sox will spend the $15 million on someone else? Will the team just bring up some minor leaguer and hope he comes through? Have the Sox ever shown they really re-invest in their own product?

I don't think the team should cave in to any demand. I do think it should do what it can to keep Maggs. If Ordonez should leave, you will see nothing but a gaping hole in right field.

And I don't go along with fans demeaning what Ordonez has done. Name me one other outfielder in Sox history who has put up the numbers Maggs has. You can't.

The main point is that the Sox have to face up to the fact that building a team costs money. If they don't have the money, or don't want to spend it, it is time to sell.

Yes, good point. That is why I framed my post with "if". If the Sox can spend it better on other(s), then they are making a healthy choice. That presupposes that management doesn't "pocket" it. Nobody would support that.

gosox41
06-13-2004, 12:51 PM
[QUOTE=Dan H]Who says the Sox will spend the $15 million on someone else? Will the team just bring up some minor leaguer and hope he comes through? Have the Sox ever shown they really re-invest in their own product?

I don't think the team should cave in to any demand. I do think it should do what it can to keep Maggs. If Ordonez should leave, you will see nothing but a gaping hole in right field.
QUOTE]


I don't think the hole will be as gaping as you think in RF.

And, yes, the team does re-invest in their own product. They've kept Thomas around like they should. They kept Ventura around, but let's face it he has had exactly one good year since he left as a FA but a lot of people (and maybe you) wanted to pay him $9 mill per that he got on the FA market.

They've signed young players like PK, ORdonez. (he is in his 7th season, 6th full year), and Durham to name a few.

They've also let people go at the right time. How many people wanted Black Jack resigned?? He had one good year but wanted a 5 eyar contract. How about Alvarez and Fernandez? Were they worth the money the got since they left the Sox?

They do invest in their product mroe then you think. There are obviously better teams, but if this team reinvested in every player the fans wanted at the time of free agency the Sox would have been stuck with a lot of dead weight contracts the lat 3 years or so and probably would have had to trade Ordonez awhile ago because we all know fans don't come out when this team wins,even if they have their players there. They're not going to come out and support them sitting on the DL or watching them underperform as the team struggles.

How do we know? Look at the history of attendance. There's a correlation with the Sox with big jumps in attendance when the team is in contention, not when a fan favorite leaves town or is resigned.



Bob

mdep524
06-13-2004, 01:06 PM
Put aside all other issues, for there are no other issues. The only thing that matters is what happens with Magglio's contract. This is a moment of truth for ownership.

Magglio must be re-signed. He is obviously an outstanding player. However, his profile as a person and competitor make him exemplary in the sport. A baseball franchise simply does not move certain personnel. Would Baltimore ever have seriously considered moving Ripken Jr. for instance? The Yankees Jeter? Magglio for the next five to six years in right field is the stuff of heroes. For a team that is largely a mid-market team that's essential.

The business model isn't that of NYY, ANA, CHC or LAD. Teams like the Sox have to build franchise players. They made this kind of investment in Frank. Albeit the Sox stingily hedged their bet with him. Now that Frank is all but the all-time statistical Sox in every category in the history of all Soxdom, we can conclude that it wasn't too bad a bet on ownership's part. Build the damn team around Ordonez, just like you built the team in the 90's around the Hurt, as painful as it sometimes has been.

Ownership should not even be putting Maggs through this gossipy, dirtying process. Make the deal and shut up. Stop with the media nonsense. Five year$75 sounds about right, and without alot of deferred this and that language. Please.

ROI is cool and all, but running a shoe factory, or a real estate business is not the same as running an organization oriented around people, the public and personnel development. Magglio is 30, he signed with the Sox when he was 17. He didn't get anything like a Borchard deal. What did it cost them to get him here from Venezuela? Five, ten grand, including air fare? At a certain point if you don't desire to reward an employee, a player, a person like this who represents probably the best the Sox and baseball can come up with along these lines then you are in the wrong business, and go away. Failure by management here should mean the end of the current ownership group.
Sorry man, I think you are off on this one. Other posters in this thread have pointed out how and why Magglio doesn't just deserve a blank check. He is not in the same category as Ripken or even Jeter, so those comparisons are wrong.

I love Maggs, in fact he is probably my favorite player on the team right now, and definitelly the best. But he is certainly not an irreplacable cog. Actually, its weird and ironic, but he has sort of gone from a vastly underrated player to slightly overrated.

Lastly, even if the Sox lowball Maggs, which I admit is a possibility, it will in no possible way mean "the end of the current ownership group." They ain't goin' nowhere.

TornLabrum
06-13-2004, 01:30 PM
[QUOTE=Dan H]Who says the Sox will spend the $15 million on someone else? Will the team just bring up some minor leaguer and hope he comes through? Have the Sox ever shown they really re-invest in their own product?

I don't think the team should cave in to any demand. I do think it should do what it can to keep Maggs. If Ordonez should leave, you will see nothing but a gaping hole in right field.
QUOTE]


I don't think the hole will be as gaping as you think in RF.

And, yes, the team does re-invest in their own product. They've kept Thomas around like they should. They kept Ventura around, but let's face it he has had exactly one good year since he left as a FA but a lot of people (and maybe you) wanted to pay him $9 mill per that he got on the FA market.

They've signed young players like PK, ORdonez. (he is in his 7th season, 6th full year), and Durham to name a few.

They've also let people go at the right time. How many people wanted Black Jack resigned?? He had one good year but wanted a 5 eyar contract. How about Alvarez and Fernandez? Were they worth the money the got since they left the Sox?

They do invest in their product mroe then you think. There are obviously better teams, but if this team reinvested in every player the fans wanted at the time of free agency the Sox would have been stuck with a lot of dead weight contracts the lat 3 years or so and probably would have had to trade Ordonez awhile ago because we all know fans don't come out when this team wins,even if they have their players there. They're not going to come out and support them sitting on the DL or watching them underperform as the team struggles.

How do we know? Look at the history of attendance. There's a correlation with the Sox with big jumps in attendance when the team is in contention, not when a fan favorite leaves town or is resigned.



Bob
Okay, name one player other than Thomas (who Williams has been trying desparately to get rid of ever since he's been GM) that the Sox have kept. Hint: Thomas came up in 1990, and he has by far the longest tenure of anyone on the club.

Dan H
06-13-2004, 06:34 PM
[QUOTE=Dan H]Who says the Sox will spend the $15 million on someone else? Will the team just bring up some minor leaguer and hope he comes through? Have the Sox ever shown they really re-invest in their own product?

I don't think the team should cave in to any demand. I do think it should do what it can to keep Maggs. If Ordonez should leave, you will see nothing but a gaping hole in right field.
QUOTE]


I don't think the hole will be as gaping as you think in RF.

And, yes, the team does re-invest in their own product. They've kept Thomas around like they should. They kept Ventura around, but let's face it he has had exactly one good year since he left as a FA but a lot of people (and maybe you) wanted to pay him $9 mill per that he got on the FA market.

They've signed young players like PK, ORdonez. (he is in his 7th season, 6th full year), and Durham to name a few.

They've also let people go at the right time. How many people wanted Black Jack resigned?? He had one good year but wanted a 5 eyar contract. How about Alvarez and Fernandez? Were they worth the money the got since they left the Sox?

They do invest in their product mroe then you think. There are obviously better teams, but if this team reinvested in every player the fans wanted at the time of free agency the Sox would have been stuck with a lot of dead weight contracts the lat 3 years or so and probably would have had to trade Ordonez awhile ago because we all know fans don't come out when this team wins,even if they have their players there. They're not going to come out and support them sitting on the DL or watching them underperform as the team struggles.

How do we know? Look at the history of attendance. There's a correlation with the Sox with big jumps in attendance when the team is in contention, not when a fan favorite leaves town or is resigned.



Bob
Sorry, I don't buy the argument that the Sox knew these players would get hurt or fail. Besides, look at the White Flag Trade. Only one player from that deal had an impact and he's gone. Letting people go at the right time may be a talent the Sox have, but you have to do more that. When people leave you have to replace them. They haven't been so good at that.

And don't start on any attendance arguments. I believe the attendance issue goes beyond just winning and losing.

Finally, the Sox haven't been to the World Series since 1959. Get there and I will credit the Sox for their great moves.

gosox41
06-14-2004, 10:40 AM
Okay, name one player other than Thomas (who Williams has been trying desparately to get rid of ever since he's been GM) that the Sox have kept. Hint: Thomas came up in 1990, and he has by far the longest tenure of anyone on the club.
Ventura was on the team 8 years.
Guillen was here 11 years
Durham was here 8 years
Fisk was here for 10 years

WHile the Sox aren't great at keeping all their players (and have certainly screwed around with some of them like Fisk) they do attempt to keep their good players around.

It doesn't always work out, but compared to the average team (ie not the Yankees) I bet their turnover is no higher then anyone elses around baseball.

And if the Sox kept every player the fans wanted them to keep for these emotional reasons this team would probably be a lot worse off. If after 1997 the Sox had signed Hernandez and Alvarez, and after 1996 had resigned Fernandez they would have had $21 mill tied up per season in 3 pitchers. 2 of them would have spent a ton of time on the DL. And while this payroll would have been tied up the Sox wouldn't have been able to afford to go out and sign/keep other players which probably means a lot worse off team with no Magglio, etc.

It's a circular discussion. If they kept these guys then so and so would be gone. Most teams can't keep everyone and there's nothing wrong with valuing assets accordingly esepcially in the era of free agency.

Winning is what draws.


Bob

gosox41
06-14-2004, 10:46 AM
Sorry, I don't buy the argument that the Sox knew these players would get hurt or fail. Besides, look at the White Flag Trade. Only one player from that deal had an impact and he's gone. Letting people go at the right time may be a talent the Sox have, but you have to do more that. When people leave you have to replace them. They haven't been so good at that.

And don't start on any attendance arguments. I believe the attendance issue goes beyond just winning and losing.

Finally, the Sox haven't been to the World Series since 1959. Get there and I will credit the Sox for their great moves.
No need to apologize.
The Sox have done a decent job at replacing players (see I'm giving KW credit) especially offensive one's.

You mentioned 1997. The Sox let those guys go. It sure beat signing them didn't it? Would you go to more games if the Sox were losing and Alvarez and Fernandez were on the DL or if the Sox were winning without the two.

There is a direct correlation between winning and attendance. If the team wins more people come out. If the team loses, less people come out. Lookign at the total attendance, it doesn't seem to matter much if Ventura is around or not.

Did you go to less games in 2000 and even last year because Ventura, Alvarez, Fernandez, Bere , and McDowell are gone? Never mind that 4 of the 5 had serious career threatening injury problems within a year or less of leaving the Sox and all wanted big money as FA's (Bere wasn't healthy enough to make it that far.)


Bob

Tragg
06-14-2004, 11:02 AM
We need to sign him AND increase the overall budget by at least the amount the signing minus $5 mill per year. If we don't increase the budget, 12-15 mill is simply too much to tie into one player as a percentage of our total budget.

So reluctantly, absent an increase in the total payroll we're willing to spend, I'd have to vote for don't sign him.

jabrch
06-14-2004, 11:25 AM
5/75 would be flat out stupid.

rahulsekhar
06-14-2004, 11:50 AM
Who says the Sox will spend the $15 million on someone else? Will the team just bring up some minor leaguer and hope he comes through? Have the Sox ever shown they really re-invest in their own product?

I don't think the team should cave in to any demand. I do think it should do what it can to keep Maggs. If Ordonez should leave, you will see nothing but a gaping hole in right field.

And I don't go along with fans demeaning what Ordonez has done. Name me one other outfielder in Sox history who has put up the numbers Maggs has. You can't.

The main point is that the Sox have to face up to the fact that building a team costs money. If they don't have the money, or don't want to spend it, it is time to sell.
Well, I think the team is doing exactly what you recommend: Seeing what it will take to resign Maggs without caving in to any demand. (And since they're still talking (reports that they had stopped negotiations are erroneous), there's no reason to assume that he's leaving.)

As for re-investing in their own product: someone a while backposted the historical attendance and payrolls for the team over the past 10-20 years. There's almost a 100% correlation between increased attendance and increased payroll the following year. Add to that the fact that every report that I've seen says JR has authorized additional payroll as needed to help position this team for the WS and I think there's a lot of evidence that they DO re-invest into their product.

That in turn means that if Maggs does go, it's highly likely that they'll spend some to all of his salary on other players, putting the burden on the GM to make the right moves.

rahulsekhar
06-14-2004, 12:02 PM
Sorry, I don't buy the argument that the Sox knew these players would get hurt or fail. .
Who would know better the potential for a plyer to get hurt that the coaching, amangement, and medical staff that's monitored the player for years? Especialyl with pitchers, workload, arm speed, etc are all things that are (and shold be) monitored by the team and factor directly into their evaluation of the player. This is especialyl true for any long-term contract.

That the Sox rightly estimated that it wasn't a good risk to give long term deals to pitchers like McDowell, Alvarez, Fernandez,etc speaks well of their evaluation skills. Similarly for hitters like Durham - if you see his skills starting to decline, then you make him an offer that's worth what he's going to deliver you in the future. The longer the deal, the more you discount the future years to get to the final total.

Now if you want to argue that the Sox are TOO conservative with pitchers (Roger Clemens being the prime example), that's fine. But I can't think of any guys they haven't resigned that I would have wanted back at the prices and contract lengths they would have had to go to.

Kadafi311
06-14-2004, 12:27 PM
I am not buying into this "sign Maggs at any cost" talk.

If the Sox offer a fair market deal and Maggs turns it down its time to move on.
I'm starting to agree with this sentiment more and more.

elrod
06-14-2004, 12:34 PM
But I can't think of any guys they haven't resigned that I would have wanted back at the prices and contract lengths they would have had to go to.
I can. Keith Foulke. But not much beyond him. The Sox have done a tremendous job of getting the most out of their players and not falling for big FA contracts for players on the decline. I'm starting to wonder if KW really knew something about Colon. By and large the White Sox have benefitted by refusing to sign pitchers to long-term deals. There's an occasional Clemens in there (not even certain we would have gotten him). But for the most part we've done well with youngsters (Buehrle) and retreads (Loaiza).

Maggs is big-time player with several great years left. He is definintely worth 5/70, with as few gimmicks as possible. He could bust but is not likely to. His injury history is light and his consistency is amazing. We could count on him every year even while people like PK would spend half the season in a slump.

gosox41
06-14-2004, 12:44 PM
I can. Keith Foulke. But not much beyond him. The Sox have done a tremendous job of getting the most out of their players and not falling for big FA contracts for players on the decline. I'm starting to wonder if KW really knew something about Colon. By and large the White Sox have benefitted by refusing to sign pitchers to long-term deals. There's an occasional Clemens in there (not even certain we would have gotten him). But for the most part we've done well with youngsters (Buehrle) and retreads (Loaiza).

Maggs is big-time player with several great years left. He is definintely worth 5/70, with as few gimmicks as possible. He could bust but is not likely to. His injury history is light and his consistency is amazing. We could count on him every year even while people like PK would spend half the season in a slump.
I agree with you about Magglio for the 5 years at around $70 mill.

As for the issue of letting players go, fans tend to get sentimental and too emotionally attached to certain players. The Sox have done a good job of getting rid of some players and avoiding the pitfalls of being stuck wtih 3 long term contracts on pitchers when all 3 are on the DL with career ending injuries.

The reason they've been able to do this is numbers. That awful word: stats. The Sox have run studies about signing pitching to long term contracts comparing performance, age , rate of injury, # of innings pitched, etc.

The results are in most cases it doesn't pay to sign certain pitchers to long term contracts. Every situation is different, but the Sox have been right about getting rid of pitchers before they get injured and eat up too much payroll.

In order to even have a chance to win, a team must evaluate its assets deciding where they can find replacements and where to identify good risk/reward scenarios. It's like any other business. Why overpay for one asset when there is a high risk of that asset not performing for extended periods when money can be invested wisely elsewhere.

Most know I'm the first person to rip on KW for misappropriating money (ie PK, Koch) and not doing enough to fill other holes that have been hoels for awhile. But this team has performed better the last 4 years because they didn't sign pitching to long term contracts then if they did. If they had odds are attendance would drop as this team would probably be a 4th-5th place team. With no attendance you no payroll isn't going higher (this is another debate for another day) so they weren't going to sign more pitching to replace the loss of a Fernandez, Alvarez, etc. And frankly, in order to pay these salaries with declining attendance as well as a losing team players like Carlos and Magglio would have long ago been traded.


Bob

gosox41
06-14-2004, 12:49 PM
Well, I think the team is doing exactly what you recommend: Seeing what it will take to resign Maggs without caving in to any demand. (And since they're still talking (reports that they had stopped negotiations are erroneous), there's no reason to assume that he's leaving.)

As for re-investing in their own product: someone a while backposted the historical attendance and payrolls for the team over the past 10-20 years. There's almost a 100% correlation between increased attendance and increased payroll the following year. Add to that the fact that every report that I've seen says JR has authorized additional payroll as needed to help position this team for the WS and I think there's a lot of evidence that they DO re-invest into their product.

That in turn means that if Maggs does go, it's highly likely that they'll spend some to all of his salary on other players, putting the burden on the GM to make the right moves.
The Sox do what they can do. There are two issues here: Does JR spend everything he can on this team (based on the partnership)? Yes he does.

Does JR screw himself over by being such a buffoon that it is ultimately costing him revenues?

Yes he does.

But there are two different issues here. JR is spending what he can and most people refuse to realize that even if they have no proof. Of course a lot of these are the same people who complain about ticket prices and the cost. Well it is expensice to take a family a lot of places. But the Sox are still cheaper to see then about 18 other teams in the majors.

If the Sox doubled their payroll but in the process doubled their ticket prices, I honestly think more and more people would complain. You can't win. And I don't want to get into a deabte of which came first the higher ticket prices or the higher salaries. Fact is a lot of revenue comes from ticket sales and it does impact what a team spends on payroll.


Bob

TornLabrum
06-14-2004, 07:16 PM
Ventura was on the team 8 years.
Guillen was here 11 years
Durham was here 8 years
Fisk was here for 10 years

WHile the Sox aren't great at keeping all their players (and have certainly screwed around with some of them like Fisk) they do attempt to keep their good players around.

It doesn't always work out, but compared to the average team (ie not the Yankees) I bet their turnover is no higher then anyone elses around baseball.

And if the Sox kept every player the fans wanted them to keep for these emotional reasons this team would probably be a lot worse off. If after 1997 the Sox had signed Hernandez and Alvarez, and after 1996 had resigned Fernandez they would have had $21 mill tied up per season in 3 pitchers. 2 of them would have spent a ton of time on the DL. And while this payroll would have been tied up the Sox wouldn't have been able to afford to go out and sign/keep other players which probably means a lot worse off team with no Magglio, etc.

It's a circular discussion. If they kept these guys then so and so would be gone. Most teams can't keep everyone and there's nothing wrong with valuing assets accordingly esepcially in the era of free agency.

Winning is what draws.


Bob
Ventura was dumped without a thought when his price got "too high."
Guillen was not all that high priced and he was let go.
Durham signed a deal before free agency and was dumped before his first free agency.
Fisk was a victim of collusion when NOBODY was signing free agents, and then became too old for anyone else to want.

rahulsekhar
06-14-2004, 10:41 PM
Ventura was dumped without a thought when his price got "too high."
Guillen was not all that high priced and he was let go.
Durham signed a deal before free agency and was dumped before his first free agency.
Fisk was a victim of collusion when NOBODY was signing free agents, and then became too old for anyone else to want.
Or you could say Ventura was dumped when his price became higher than his production (factoring in length of deal).
Guillen was let go IIRC partially because he wanted a situation where he could still have a shot to start.
Durham was dumped because he was starting to decline, and wanted a big deal.

TornLabrum
06-14-2004, 11:14 PM
Or you could say Ventura was dumped when his price became higher than his production (factoring in length of deal).
Guillen was let go IIRC partially because he wanted a situation where he could still have a shot to start.
Durham was dumped because he was starting to decline, and wanted a big deal.
In baseball, you get paid for past performance. That's what the Sox would have had to do with Ventura.

Guillen would have been dumped because the Sox had the great Mike Caruso waiting in the wings, and Schueler needed to show quickly that the White Flag Trade was going to pay off.

Durham was dumped before his free agency. Period. Just like they've done with other players. The plan is to sign them through that first free agency to give the impression that they want to keep their talent, and then blame the players for wanting too much when they become free agents. (See Ordonez, Magglio).

mediasblancas
06-14-2004, 11:50 PM
Sorry man, I think you are off on this one. Other posters in this thread have pointed out how and why Magglio doesn't just deserve a blank check. He is not in the same category as Ripken or even Jeter, so those comparisons are wrong.

I love Maggs, in fact he is probably my favorite player on the team right now, and definitelly the best. But he is certainly not an irreplacable cog. Actually, its weird and ironic, but he has sort of gone from a vastly underrated player to slightly overrated.

Lastly, even if the Sox lowball Maggs, which I admit is a possibility, it will in no possible way mean "the end of the current ownership group." They ain't goin' nowhere.
Magglio Ordonez' virtues as a player lie in his above average run production, intelligent and poised defense, steely reliability. As an undrafted, teenage free agent, I suppose his per year cost to his bosses amounted to one Chicago - Tampa rd. trip flight on an upscale Lear jet. Money is still owed in my view.

The comparison to Jeter and Ripken was done to shed some light on Ordonez relationship to the organization, not as a player vis-a-vis Ripken and the Yankee.

Ownership is not being held hostage by Magglio. Ownership holds fans hostage for not abiding the advice of one guy who wrote, above: if you don't have the money or aren't willing to spend it then sell the damn team. That's what why they should go away. You can't build a team without spending some money. If you don't abide by the rules of business and the rules of winning baseball spend some loot to build a team and rewarding your own, then bye bye.

As for ones that got away, add Roberto Hernandez to the list. He had a few good seasons in there with some lousy teams.

batmanZoSo
06-14-2004, 11:53 PM
Are you nuts? $15mil/yr? So you want to pay Maggs more than Vlady - whos' arguably the best player in the game? Maggs is worth a bit less than $14, but the bottom line is that he seems to want to go on the market and see what he can get.

Your "sounds about right" sounds like you pulled it out of your butt. Why not 5yr/90mil? That sounds righter! Hey - whatever as long as they resign him, right?
Maggs will go FA and end up signing about what we were offering him.

TaylorStSox
06-14-2004, 11:53 PM
The "undrafted" comment doesn't make sense.

Why can't people understand that overpaying for anybody isn't the good business.

gosox41
06-15-2004, 10:23 AM
Ventura was dumped without a thought when his price got "too high."
Guillen was not all that high priced and he was let go.
Durham signed a deal before free agency and was dumped before his first free agency.
Fisk was a victim of collusion when NOBODY was signing free agents, and then became too old for anyone else to want.

Meanwhile, what have Ventura, Guillen, or Durham done as players since they left the Sox?

Ventura had one good year the year after he left in which he hit .300. Best BA since then was a whopping .251 in all of 289 at bats.

Durham played a whole 110 games last season and is having injury problems again this season since he left. This year I've read articles concerning Durhams conditioning or lack thereof.

After Guillen left the Sox he never played more then 95 games a year and had only 280 at bats in that year.

Fisk was avictim of collusion but I don't know the whole scenario well enough to know details. The courts ruled he was a victim. But that was in the mid-80's. He still came back in the late '80s after 1. being treated like dirt by JR 2. knowing full well JR is cheap and 3. had an intense hatred for JR.

I like all the above as people and players. The fact is outside of Ventura's one great year, none of them have lived up to the contracts they signed since the left the team. I odn't see how they would help the Sox win the last few years ebibng that they'd be taking up a roster spot from young players and eating a ton of payroll.

The SOx chose to get rid of them because even though they knew how popular some of them were, they weren't worth the risk in terms of helping the team win. Why these guys didn't do well after they left could be due to a number of factors like age, injury, lack of heart, or the fact taht another team may have overspent and the Sox (rightfully) couldn't justify taking on that risk. So far, in terms of trying to build a winning team, they were right. Would any of these guys (or all of them) have given the Sox a division the last 3 years or pushed the Sox ahead into the next round of the playoffs in 2000? I doubt it.


If this were football I can see brning guys back more often knowing full well they can be cut at a later date if they ahd a bad year. Can't do it in baseball and even if you could the Sox would be under more heat for cutting a 'fan favorite'.


Bob

gosox41
06-15-2004, 10:27 AM
In baseball, you get paid for past performance. That's what the Sox would have had to do with Ventura.

Guillen would have been dumped because the Sox had the great Mike Caruso waiting in the wings, and Schueler needed to show quickly that the White Flag Trade was going to pay off.

Durham was dumped before his free agency. Period. Just like they've done with other players. The plan is to sign them through that first free agency to give the impression that they want to keep their talent, and then blame the players for wanting too much when they become free agents. (See Ordonez, Magglio).

Past performance is no guarantee of future return. :wink:

Seriouslly, I don't get how you can want to pay all these guys a lot of money for past performance when the numbers have beared out and they have gone downhill. It's like buying a stock. The smart people were the one's who bought internet stocks in pre-1997. The dumb one's were the guys who bought at the top because they performed so well over the previous years. Players are assets and can be measured in many different ways (performance on the field being the most important). If a team feels that a player is on the decline then let someone else pay for 'past performance'.


Bob

gosox41
06-15-2004, 10:30 AM
Magglio Ordonez' virtues as a player lie in his above average run production, intelligent and poised defense, steely reliability. As an undrafted, teenage free agent, I suppose his per year cost to his bosses amounted to one Chicago - Tampa rd. trip flight on an upscale Lear jet. Money is still owed in my view.

The comparison to Jeter and Ripken was done to shed some light on Ordonez relationship to the organization, not as a player vis-a-vis Ripken and the Yankee.

Ownership is not being held hostage by Magglio. Ownership holds fans hostage for not abiding the advice of one guy who wrote, above: if you don't have the money or aren't willing to spend it then sell the damn team. That's what why they should go away. You can't build a team without spending some money. If you don't abide by the rules of business and the rules of winning baseball spend some loot to build a team and rewarding your own, then bye bye.

As for ones that got away, add Roberto Hernandez to the list. He had a few good seasons in there with some lousy teams.






It's one guy. Between Fernandez, Alvarez, and Hernandez, can you have guessed which one would have been the most productive over 5 years and paid just him? Or is it better to tie up a ton of money i nguys who are on the DL.

I criticize the Sox (and KW) a ton. But it's hard to criticize a team that is getting rid of players who sign big contracts and experience declines in their ability. If the Sox signed all of them and had these problems, people here would be complainnig about that. You can't win.

ANd I would say FOulke was a more then adequate replacement for Hernandez. He was the guy the team can most afford to lose...a reliever.


Bob

rahulsekhar
06-15-2004, 11:50 AM
In baseball, you get paid for past performance. That's what the Sox would have had to do with Ventura.

Guillen would have been dumped because the Sox had the great Mike Caruso waiting in the wings, and Schueler needed to show quickly that the White Flag Trade was going to pay off.

Durham was dumped before his free agency. Period. Just like they've done with other players. The plan is to sign them through that first free agency to give the impression that they want to keep their talent, and then blame the players for wanting too much when they become free agents. (See Ordonez, Magglio).
So - your argument is that it would have been better to keep Ventura and overpay for his current performance? Isn't it better to identify "up and coming" players and sign them rather than overpaying guys who are declining?

As for Durham - Ray Ray's #s since he left Chicago are less than stellar. And his salary is pretty high. You can say that he was dumped BECAUSE he was an FA, but the stats bear out the argument that he was dumped because he was going to command more on the market than the Sox felt he was worth. Since I'm fairly certian that the Giants wish they weren't paying him such a high salary - looks like the Sox estimate of his value was right and the Giants were wrong.

Seriously - are you somehow saying that you wish the Sox had resigned these guys at the salaries requried? Would you want to be paying Durham 7.2mil for his stellar .278 / 2HR / 2SB in 97ABs? Did you really miss his .285 / 7HR / 8SB in 410 ABs last year at about the same salary?

FarWestChicago
06-15-2004, 12:36 PM
Durham played a whole 110 games last season and is having injury problems again this season since he left. This year I've read articles concerning Durhams conditioning or lack thereof.Hey, Fire Hydrant is about to come off the DL again. And yes, the Giants do believe he spends most of his time on the DL due to being out of shape. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

rahulsekhar
06-15-2004, 12:43 PM
Hey, Fire Hydrant is about to come off the DL again. And yes, the Giants do believe he spends most of his time on the DL due to being out of shape. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/rolleyes.gifBut you know what - KW gets slammed for not resigning him. And if he was doing this with the Sox, he'd get slammed for resigning him (see Konerko, Paul). He can't win.

But then, I guess to some - that's the point, isn't it?

FarWestChicago
06-15-2004, 12:56 PM
But you know what - KW gets slammed for not resigning him. And if he was doing this with the Sox, he'd get slammed for resigning him (see Konerko, Paul). He can't win.

But then, I guess to some - that's the point, isn't it?Yep. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Dan H
06-15-2004, 01:09 PM
No need to apologize.
The Sox have done a decent job at replacing players (see I'm giving KW credit) especially offensive one's.

You mentioned 1997. The Sox let those guys go. It sure beat signing them didn't it? Would you go to more games if the Sox were losing and Alvarez and Fernandez were on the DL or if the Sox were winning without the two.

There is a direct correlation between winning and attendance. If the team wins more people come out. If the team loses, less people come out. Lookign at the total attendance, it doesn't seem to matter much if Ventura is around or not.

Did you go to less games in 2000 and even last year because Ventura, Alvarez, Fernandez, Bere , and McDowell are gone? Never mind that 4 of the 5 had serious career threatening injury problems within a year or less of leaving the Sox and all wanted big money as FA's (Bere wasn't healthy enough to make it that far.)


Bob
Actually I went to no games in 1997 right after the trade and 1 game in 1998 because I have been through enough rebuilding in my lifetime. I returned for more in 1999 because I saw a glimpse of hope though even then I didn't have much optimism.

For me, the 1997 trade wasn't about keeping or adding players. It was about credibility and the Sox didn't have a lot in my book. Not winning is not the worst thing. Not trying is another, and this loss of credibility chased many people from the park, some for good. Show me a team that makes the real effort, and I will be more willing to suffer the lean years. But if it a team is trying to do it with smoke and mirrors, I am not so willing to shell out my money.

I agree with you winning is the best way to draw people. But the 2000 club drew the least of the three division winning teams, despite a significant increase over 1999. That shows the club had a problem, and in my opinion still has one.

It is your right to differ with me, but the White Sox have to realize what they do with Ordonez is extremely important. If they make an honest effort sign him and can't, that is one story. However, the team cannot afford to make a lackluster effort to keep him, let him go, and then put an unproven talent in his place. That will send a very wrong message and will only add to any attendance woes they already are experiencing.

mdep524
06-15-2004, 01:14 PM
Magglio Ordonez' virtues as a player lie in his above average run production, intelligent and poised defense, steely reliability. As an undrafted, teenage free agent, I suppose his per year cost to his bosses amounted to one Chicago - Tampa rd. trip flight on an upscale Lear jet. Money is still owed in my view.
So, let me get this straight- because Magglio was not a heralded draftee and thus wasn't paid a huge signing bonus, he deserves more money now than he would otherwise? That is a terrible argument, and an awful precedent to set.

That is also a double standard- would the guys who WERE paid millions of dollars just to sign after the draft (a concept I think is so ridiculous anyway- they're frickin' minor leaguers, they should get their fat contracts when they become big leaguers) deserve LESS money when they became free agents in the bigs? Yeah right, try selling that idea to Scott Bora$$. Also, what about guys with huge bonuses that never pan out? IIRC, Joe Borchard was paid the biggest signing bonus ever in Sox history. Suppose he doesn't pan out at all (I hope he does well, but just for the sake of argument), would he then owe JR and the Sox money for not living up to his huge contract?

rahulsekhar
06-15-2004, 01:35 PM
If they make an honest effort sign him and can't, that is one story. However, the team cannot afford to make a lackluster effort to keep him, let him go, and then put an unproven talent in his place. That will send a very wrong message and will only add to any attendance woes they already are experiencing.
The problem is that based on the posts by a number of people here, if the Sox are outbid by anyone, then that translates into not making an honest effort. If, for example - the Sox offer $14mil with some deferred and someone else offers $14mil with less $$$ deferred - is that an honest effort? What about $13mil with the same deferred as someone elses $14mil contract?

IMO if Maggs wants the biggest total contract (factoring in deferrals), then he's not going to return. But I think the Sox will be relatively close to the market, enough that if he WANTS to stay, he will.

TornLabrum
06-15-2004, 03:36 PM
Meanwhile, what have Ventura, Guillen, or Durham done as players since they left the Sox?

Ventura had one good year the year after he left in which he hit .300. Best BA since then was a whopping .251 in all of 289 at bats.

Durham played a whole 110 games last season and is having injury problems again this season since he left. This year I've read articles concerning Durhams conditioning or lack thereof.

After Guillen left the Sox he never played more then 95 games a year and had only 280 at bats in that year.

Fisk was avictim of collusion but I don't know the whole scenario well enough to know details. The courts ruled he was a victim. But that was in the mid-80's. He still came back in the late '80s after 1. being treated like dirt by JR 2. knowing full well JR is cheap and 3. had an intense hatred for JR.

I like all the above as people and players. The fact is outside of Ventura's one great year, none of them have lived up to the contracts they signed since the left the team. I odn't see how they would help the Sox win the last few years ebibng that they'd be taking up a roster spot from young players and eating a ton of payroll.

The SOx chose to get rid of them because even though they knew how popular some of them were, they weren't worth the risk in terms of helping the team win. Why these guys didn't do well after they left could be due to a number of factors like age, injury, lack of heart, or the fact taht another team may have overspent and the Sox (rightfully) couldn't justify taking on that risk. So far, in terms of trying to build a winning team, they were right. Would any of these guys (or all of them) have given the Sox a division the last 3 years or pushed the Sox ahead into the next round of the playoffs in 2000? I doubt it.


If this were football I can see brning guys back more often knowing full well they can be cut at a later date if they ahd a bad year. Can't do it in baseball and even if you could the Sox would be under more heat for cutting a 'fan favorite'.


Bob
You can't give the Sox credit for what players did or didn't do when they let go of them. Not unless you're trying to tell me they all have crystal balls and can see into the future.

soxtalker
06-15-2004, 03:51 PM
You can't give the Sox credit for what players did or didn't do when they let go of them. Not unless you're trying to tell me they all have crystal balls and can see into the future.
I don't understand your. The Sox management (JR and KW currently) needs to make their best estimate of what players will do in the future, when they make contract offers. The fact that most of the players listed by gosox41 didn't do all that well in the future would seem to indicate that they did their job well, as much as we fans may not have liked the decision at the time. There are also counter examples, though the ones that come to mind -- Koch and perhaps Konerko and Valentin (neither of the latter two lately) -- are when they did spend the money. I suppose that the decision not to go after Roger Clemons is another example.

rahulsekhar
06-15-2004, 03:51 PM
You can't give the Sox credit for what players did or didn't do when they let go of them. Not unless you're trying to tell me they all have crystal balls and can see into the future.
Isn't that what GMs are supposed to try and do? Who cares what players have done historically, all that matters is what they do in the future. The point of historical stats is to help one estimate what future performance is likely to be. If all it was was matching up historical stats and making decisions, the job would be alot easier. But no one cares if a guy hit .300 last year when he's hitting .250 this year. All they care about is if he can get back to .300.

It's not the 100% uninformed "crystal ball", it's about using the available data: trends in player's performance, observation of work ethic and character, understanding of general trends in how player performances change with age and different injuries, etc. Based on that - the Sox in general have done a GREAT job in identifying guys that are likely to decline and letting them be albatrosses elsewhere.

And there's a pretty big sample size for it to be sheer luck that they figure out when to let guys go. As recounted earlier in this thread (IIRC), I believe the only FA they let go who's done much of anything post-Sox is Keith Foulke. And there's a host of names out there that have gotten their contracts and effectively rested on them: top of mind being McDowell, Alvarez, Fernandez, Durham.

That's not luck, that's good team management.

gosox41
06-16-2004, 11:22 AM
But you know what - KW gets slammed for not resigning him. And if he was doing this with the Sox, he'd get slammed for resigning him (see Konerko, Paul). He can't win.

But then, I guess to some - that's the point, isn't it?
Believe it or not I've faulted KW for overpaying for PK numerous times. I have also made refernce to how I'd rather have signed Ray to less money (they both signed 3 year contracts in the same offseason) then PK.

I didn't realize Ray lacked heart to maintain a conditioning program, or so the rumors go. And I'm glad PK has bounced back from his awful 2003. Before this year (in regards to his career) he was an average offensive 1B at his best and is overpaid based on that. If he maintains what he is doing this year (which is walking, he's got a nice OBP) then I'll be happy.

I hope he continues, but I also must point out another fact. PK has not put two good halves together in the same season in his career.

Take it for what it's worth. You may not like me saying it, but look it up. Personally I hope he hits like he has all year because winning is more fun then criticizing KW.


Bob

gosox41
06-16-2004, 11:30 AM
Actually I went to no games in 1997 right after the trade and 1 game in 1998 because I have been through enough rebuilding in my lifetime. I returned for more in 1999 because I saw a glimpse of hope though even then I didn't have much optimism.

For me, the 1997 trade wasn't about keeping or adding players. It was about credibility and the Sox didn't have a lot in my book. Not winning is not the worst thing. Not trying is another, and this loss of credibility chased many people from the park, some for good. Show me a team that makes the real effort, and I will be more willing to suffer the lean years. But if it a team is trying to do it with smoke and mirrors, I am not so willing to shell out my money.

I agree with you winning is the best way to draw people. But the 2000 club drew the least of the three division winning teams, despite a significant increase over 1999. That shows the club had a problem, and in my opinion still has one.

It is your right to differ with me, but the White Sox have to realize what they do with Ordonez is extremely important. If they make an honest effort sign him and can't, that is one story. However, the team cannot afford to make a lackluster effort to keep him, let him go, and then put an unproven talent in his place. That will send a very wrong message and will only add to any attendance woes they already are experiencing.

One reason the 2000 attendance wasn't as high as 1993 was because the Sox weren't expected to be as good. Attendance did jump big the second half. The 2000 team drew slightly under the '83 team because fans wanted to see if they were for real. The 1993 team was expected to be good.

Attendance is up 24% for the SOx comapred to last year. A second half rush boosted attendance there. As long as fans feel this team has a chance to win they'll show.

As for credibility, the Sox do need to be careful how the handle negotiations for Magglio. But I guarantee some rumor is going to come out here about deferred money or # of years and no one will know if it's true but it won't stop people from assuming the worst, that the Sox are not legitimately trying to sign Magglio.


Bob

jabrch
06-16-2004, 11:41 AM
You can't give the Sox credit for what players did or didn't do when they let go of them. Not unless you're trying to tell me they all have crystal balls and can see into the future.
But isn't that what GMs are paid to do Hal? Grab their crystal balls and determine if a player will play up to a certain level to warrant a certain contract?

gosox41
06-16-2004, 11:44 AM
You can't give the Sox credit for what players did or didn't do when they let go of them. Not unless you're trying to tell me they all have crystal balls and can see into the future.

Why can't I? While they don't have crystal balls, they do have that dreaded think called statistics. Want to know how pitcher's hold up after pitching X amount of innings before the age of 25? The Sox have it via Stats Inc. as well as a bunch of other stats that help them (and other teams) make decisisons. While they can't know everything and anything they've been more right then wrong as of late in regards to not getting bogged down to too many high priced contracts. Some of it may be luck (like DUrham getting injured) but maybe they knew Durham lacked heart (again, the Giants blame his injuries on lack of conditioning).

The Sox are trying to build a winning team. It involves making tough decisions. But to keep players around at high priced long term contracts when they're not helping the team win because they're fan favorites is not going to make it any easier for this team to get to the playoffs or Series. The Sox have a very small loyal group of loyal fans who will come out through the good and bad. They can't afford to make mistakes based on just using the emotions of fans.

There's no player that you metioned that the Sox let go that would make up their salaries in increased attendance. Or to look at it another way, we all know JR. He is not about to increase the payroll of this team if the fans don't come out and support it just because $21 mill. of payroll in the name of 3 pitchers is sitting on the DL. If the fans would show up more through good/bad things may be different. But the reality is what it is. We all know JR is responsible for a lot of bad things with this team. But I won't blame him for not signing players that have done nothing after they have left because they wanted a ton of money and were fan favorites.

If they were that happy here, they didn't have to leave. The Sox offered Ventura a 3 year contract at $6.5 mill per right before he left. And guess what? The Sox still would have been overpaying to keep him around after seeing the job he did. They would have gotten really screwed over if they signed him for $9 mill. per like the Mets did.

And it's not like these players would give money back if they spend 90% of their time on the DL (Ahem...Fernandez) Not that they should because a contract is a contract and I wouldn't give money back either. But it doesn't help the Sox to see a 'fan favorite' sitting on the DL getting paid lots of money..

Or think of it another way. By letting these guys go, it gives me that much less to complain about with KW.:D:


Bob