PDA

View Full Version : Maggs Article - he gone?


GoSox2K3
06-22-2004, 08:05 AM
This Sun-Times article says that the Sox have never made a serious offer to Maggs and won't and they are positioning themselves to, in the end, make it look like they tried to re-sign him but Maggs just walked away. :mad:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/deluca/cst-spt-deluca22.htm

jabrch
06-22-2004, 08:13 AM
"The spin will be Ordonez made the choice to walk away. Don't believe it."

Just because the Sox didn't offer him 5/70, doesn't mean that he isn't choosing to walk. It is Magglio's choice - at the end of the day. If making 14 is more important than making 12 and staying with the Sox (and I can't blame him for that decision), then goodbye Magglio - we will miss you. You may get 14mm from the Mets or the Dodgers. But you won't get that here.

I am fully ready to move on in 2005 without Ordonez and to seek alternative ways to spend the 12-13 mm that was budgeted for him, or the 14mm that he earned this season. I am fully ready to go with Reed and/or Borchard. I am not a Magglio fan, a Frank fan, an Ozzie fan, a Carlos fan, etc. - I am a Sox fan.

sas1974
06-22-2004, 08:22 AM
What a half-assed article. There's not one quote in it from anybody. Until I see a quote from Maggs, his agent or KW, I will continue to reserve judgement. But thanks anyway for your opinion, Chris.

sas1974
06-22-2004, 08:27 AM
When the dust settles from the eventual Ordonez exit, the Sox will look as silly as they did in their failed pursuit to sign A-Rod on the cheap days before he landed his landmark 10-year, $252 million contract from the Texas Rangers.
This has to be one of the most asinine things I have ever read. Their were reports that the Sox offered A-Rod as much as $160MM. On what planet is that cheap?

GoSox2K3
06-22-2004, 08:34 AM
"The spin will be Ordonez made the choice to walk away. Don't believe it."

Just because the Sox didn't offer him 5/70, doesn't mean that he isn't choosing to walk. It is Magglio's choice - at the end of the day. If making 14 is more important than making 12 and staying with the Sox (and I can't blame him for that decision), then goodbye Magglio - we will miss you. You may get 14mm from the Mets or the Dodgers. But you won't get that here.

I am fully ready to move on in 2005 without Ordonez and to seek alternative ways to spend the 12-13 mm that was budgeted for him, or the 14mm that he earned this season. I am fully ready to go with Reed and/or Borchard. I am not a Magglio fan, a Frank fan, an Ozzie fan, a Carlos fan, etc. - I am a Sox fan.I think you are missing the point - are the Sox indeed offering him some reasonable amount and is Maggs just walking away because he wants 14mil instead of 10 or 12mil? I read this article to say that this what the Sox want you to think, but they won't make any serious effort to keep him.

We don't know what is really going on in private negotiations, but this is exactly what we have come to expect from Sox ownership - little commitment to invest in a winning team but trying to make fans believe they are committed to winning.

And if you're hoping that Maggs leaving means this frees up 14 million for the Sox to spend on other quality players - I wouldn't count on it. Expect the Sox to make no quality aquistions and try to win with talent from our farm system. (oh wait, maybe I should put "talent from our farm system" in teal since that is pretty non-existant at this point).

But, on the bright side, we'll probably have green seats and a better marketing campaign next year.

Railsplitter
06-22-2004, 08:36 AM
Funny, I thought all the negotiations were being done in private.

Anything mentioned before the press conference that one way or another Maggs' future with Sox is pure speculation.

gosox41
06-22-2004, 08:41 AM
"The spin will be Ordonez made the choice to walk away. Don't believe it."

Just because the Sox didn't offer him 5/70, doesn't mean that he isn't choosing to walk. It is Magglio's choice - at the end of the day. If making 14 is more important than making 12 and staying with the Sox (and I can't blame him for that decision), then goodbye Magglio - we will miss you. You may get 14mm from the Mets or the Dodgers. But you won't get that here.

I am fully ready to move on in 2005 without Ordonez and to seek alternative ways to spend the 12-13 mm that was budgeted for him, or the 14mm that he earned this season. I am fully ready to go with Reed and/or Borchard. I am not a Magglio fan, a Frank fan, an Ozzie fan, a Carlos fan, etc. - I am a Sox fan.
I agree. How much money does this guy want? If he is truly happy here he shoould be fine with making slightly less then Vlad money because he is a slightly lesser player any way you look at it.

It's about trying to keep things in perspective. Magglio is great, but last I checked we haven't won a playoff game with him around. Not that it's all his fault, but if that money can find 2 starting pitchers, then I think there would be a different outlook for this team.


Bob

GoSox2K3
06-22-2004, 08:54 AM
This has to be one of the most asinine things I have ever read. Their were reports that the Sox offered A-Rod as much as $160MM. On what planet is that cheap?
$160mil isn't cheap, but I believe the accusation is that the Sox made an offer that they knew was way below what A-Rod would accept just so Reinsdorf & Co. can tell us fans that they tried their best to get A-Rod. That's misleading - but that doesn't mean that we should have broken the bank for ARod either - it just means that the Sox are more interested in misleading Sox fans than being serious about building a championship caliber team.

TornLabrum
06-22-2004, 08:58 AM
This Sun-Times article says that the Sox have never made a serious offer to Maggs and won't and they are positioning themselves to, in the end, make it look like they tried to re-sign him but Maggs just walked away. :mad:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/deluca/cst-spt-deluca22.htm
I noticed there wasn't a single direct quote from Ordonez in that article. Interesting.

GoSox2K3
06-22-2004, 09:01 AM
..... but if that money can find 2 starting pitchers, then I think there would be a different outlook for this team.

Bob
That's the big IF. IF they did that then, then I would agree with you 100%. But history tells us that they won't. Since the White Flag Trade in '97, the Sox ownership has been running this team like we're the Brewers or Expos.

Ok, I have spread enough negativity for one day. Back to work for me.

mantis1212
06-22-2004, 09:10 AM
I noticed there wasn't a single direct quote from Ordonez in that article. Interesting.
I know, he's making a lot of broad statements here, stuff I've never heard.

"The sting of the proposed Nomar Garciaparra-for-Ordonez swap in the Boston Red Sox' failed attempt to land Alex Rodriguez last winter cut Ordonez deeply. "

Since when? This guy is trying to pass his opinions off as facts, what garbage.

Kogs35
06-22-2004, 09:10 AM
i belive the sun-times as much i belive the royals will trade beltran for a piece of bread and butter

thepaulbowski
06-22-2004, 09:18 AM
[QUOTE=GoSox2K3]That's the big IF. IF they did that then, then I would agree with you 100%. But history tells us that they won't. Since the White Flag Trade in '97, the Sox ownership has been running this team like we're the Brewers or Expos.
QUOTE]

While the team has not been as successful as I'd like, it ridiculous to say they have been run like the Brewers or Expos.

Dan H
06-22-2004, 09:29 AM
I don't take anything written in the papers on face value, but I am also now just willing to say, if Maggs walks, it is totally his decision. This is a two way street, and if things break down, the fault goes both ways.

Is Ordonez being unreasonable? Maybe. But the main point is that someone will be willing to give him what he wants, and that poses a problem for the Sox and their fans.

I don't understand the venom toward Ordonez. He's done nothing but produce year after year. Last year was an "off" year and he still had 99 RBIs. And he has done so with no hint of scandal or trouble. How many years have we had to put with Frank's whining?

If the Sox don't sign Ordonez, the team is sending a message, and it is the wrong one.

Blob
06-22-2004, 09:40 AM
What a half-assed article. There's not one quote in it from anybody. Until I see a quote from Maggs, his agent or KW, I will continue to reserve judgement. But thanks anyway for your opinion, Chris.
That's exatly what I telling myself while reading the article. No quotes from anyone, just some half-assed opion of a guy who probably never played baseball much less negotiatiated anyones contract!

Shut up and wait, bonehead! I hope that article comes back to bite him in the butt.

voodoochile
06-22-2004, 09:42 AM
This has to be one of the most asinine things I have ever read. Their were reports that the Sox offered A-Rod as much as $160MM. On what planet is that cheap?
Um... on this one. Let's see...

He wasn't going to sit down at the table unless offered 10 years $200M and ends up signing for 10 years $252M. The Sox offered 10 years $160M. That's cheap...

This isn't some burger slinging job at McD's.

jabrch
06-22-2004, 09:43 AM
The Sox have already made serious efforts and offers to keep him. He wants more. That's his right. Buh Bye.

The Sox will likely keep their payroll in the same range next year as this year - possibly even raising it. So if Magglio walks, and frees up 14mm, what do you think is going to happen to it? JR/KW will use it on another FA - right?

I think you are missing the point - are the Sox indeed offering him some reasonable amount and is Maggs just walking away because he wants 14mil instead of 10 or 12mil? I read this article to say that this what the Sox want you to think, but they won't make any serious effort to keep him.

We don't know what is really going on in private negotiations, but this is exactly what we have come to expect from Sox ownership - little commitment to invest in a winning team but trying to make fans believe they are committed to winning.

And if you're hoping that Maggs leaving means this frees up 14 million for the Sox to spend on other quality players - I wouldn't count on it. Expect the Sox to make no quality aquistions and try to win with talent from our farm system. (oh wait, maybe I should put "talent from our farm system" in teal since that is pretty non-existant at this point).

But, on the bright side, we'll probably have green seats and a better marketing campaign next year.

Flight #24
06-22-2004, 09:48 AM
That's the big IF. IF they did that then, then I would agree with you 100%. But history tells us that they won't. Since the White Flag Trade in '97, the Sox ownership has been running this team like we're the Brewers or Expos.

Ok, I have spread enough negativity for one day. Back to work for me.
That's flat wrong. History says: When attendance drops, payroll drops. When attendance rises, payroll rises. Attendance is a leading indicator of payroll. If the Sox continue to contend, and attendance continues to increase, there's no reason to think that payroll will be decreased, in fact the opposite is likely.

Now that's not to say that increased attendance = increased offer to Maggs. IMO, the Sox will make what they consider to be an offer at Maggs fair value. If he goes elsewhere for more, then they'll go get someone else.

The "Reinsdorf is cheap and always has been" argument makes for nice rhetoric, but isn't borne out by fact. JR is fiscally cautious - he won't spend and hope to get a return. But there's little to no evidence that he won't spend money on a good team. Go back to the additions of Navarro and Belle. Both were (at the time) big name guys who got pretty sizeable salaries. That those moves didn't work out is not due to any cheapness by ownership. Then move on to David Wells and his $9m salary in '01. Or look at the historical correlation between payroll changes and the prior year's attendance (which have been posted here before). The facts are there.

Kogs35
06-22-2004, 09:50 AM
That's exatly what I telling myself while reading the article. No quotes from anyone, just some half-assed opion of a guy who probably never played baseball much less negotiatiated anyones contract!

Shut up and wait, bonehead! I hope that article comes back to bite him in the butt.

:moron
" what you mean the sun-times can't be like the ny papers that propose outragous trades every day?" "come on thats what we love to do."

pearso66
06-22-2004, 11:00 AM
Um... on this one. Let's see...

He wasn't going to sit down at the table unless offered 10 years $200M and ends up signing for 10 years $252M. The Sox offered 10 years $160M. That's cheap...

This isn't some burger slinging job at McD's.
And if wouldnt sit for anything less then 10 years at $200 mil, then the guy is greedy. I have no problem with the sox not making him that offer, in fact, I think 160mil would have been too much. Nothin like screwing your team for 10 years for 1 guy. I admit he is good, but IIRC I don't think he's won a playoff game, I could be wrong. And since he's left Seattle, they were better the couple years after he left, and Texas, so far they ahve been better after he left. I don't regret not signign him one bit.

mantis1212
06-22-2004, 11:05 AM
Um... on this one. Let's see...

He wasn't going to sit down at the table unless offered 10 years $200M and ends up signing for 10 years $252M. The Sox offered 10 years $160M. That's cheap...

This isn't some burger slinging job at McD's.
Funny how the Yankees ended up getting him for exactly that- $16MM a year

sas1974
06-22-2004, 11:09 AM
Um... on this one. Let's see...

He wasn't going to sit down at the table unless offered 10 years $200M and ends up signing for 10 years $252M. The Sox offered 10 years $160M. That's cheap...

This isn't some burger slinging job at McD's.
He wasn't going to sit down at the table for less then 10 @ $100MM bc he and his agent are greedy bastards. $16MM/yr is not and was not cheap at the time. I am not arguing the fact the I am sure the Sox had no intention of signing him or that all the talk about us "going after him" was just propaganda. I am just saying $160MM is not being cheap. I would also add that he would have been in much better shape taking the our "offer" and playing for a winning team than wallowing away in Texas.

PS-Please belittle my job. The world needs burger slingers too.:D:

infohawk
06-22-2004, 11:18 AM
At the risk of sounding like an optimist, I have a different take on the situation.

I have no reason to believe that our payroll won't be in the $60-70 million dollar range next season. For sake of argument, let's say $65 million. If Maggs insists on $14 million a year, and the Sox agree to pay it, that's approximately 22% of the payroll. That is a huge percentage to pay one player when the team has clearly identifiable holes to fill. Especially considering the White Sox organization has considerable outfield depth to draw upon.

First and foremost, the Sox need pitching. As good as the organization appears to be at drafting and developing outfielders, they have been poor as of late at developing pitching prospects. The only viable solution is to go outside the organization. I suspect that the Sox strategy going into next year is probably to use the money freed up from not having the contracts of Maggs, Koch and Valentin on the books and acquire some pitching. Reed or Borchard would take over in right and Uribe would assume duties at short. Not keeping Maggs, Koch and Valentin would free up something like $25-28 million (give or take).

The Sox are in an enviable position in that most of their position players are solid, and more importantly, cheap. Their biggest concern is probably centerfield, but it sounds like Reed or Borchard may be able to hold it down. $25-28 million could go a long way toward acquiring pitching. Perhaps two starters and some relievers. I read somewhere that the free agent market this next year will be flooded with pitchers. If so, this should further drive down their price.

Bottom line, the Sox need to invest more heavily in pitching than in an outfielder.

bestkosher
06-22-2004, 11:27 AM
i belive the sun-times as much i belive the royals will trade beltran for a piece of bread and butter[font color=green]I thought the Sox already tried out Jose Paniagua in the preseason

voodoochile
06-22-2004, 11:44 AM
Funny how the Yankees ended up getting him for exactly that- $16MM a year
Texas is still paying the rest of that money. He is still getting the whole 1/4 billion...:o:

voodoochile
06-22-2004, 11:48 AM
He wasn't going to sit down at the table for less then 10 @ $100MM bc he and his agent are greedy bastards. $16MM/yr is not and was not cheap at the time. I am not arguing the fact the I am sure the Sox had no intention of signing him or that all the talk about us "going after him" was just propaganda. I am just saying $160MM is not being cheap. I would also add that he would have been in much better shape taking the our "offer" and playing for a winning team than wallowing away in Texas.

PS-Please belittle my job. The world needs burger slingers too.:D:
and pizza makers too. I would never denigrate the people who work in food service, having made it my career choice. I was merely pointing out that what seems expensive in the "real world" has no bearing on the entertainment industry.

I actually heard JR had an offer for 10 years, $195M in his hand and wanted to talk to ARod face to face. Boras said, "No." That is even cheaper, IMO. To come to a room with a minimum bid level with an offer 2.5% below that minimum bid. That is SO JR...

Ever tried to buy into a $10K poker game with $9750? It isn't going to happen...

mantis1212
06-22-2004, 11:49 AM
Texas is still paying the rest of that money. He is still getting the whole 1/4 billion...:o:
Yeah, but it's obvious now he wasn't worth that amount. I just found it funny how he proved to be "worth" just that.

ode to veeck
06-22-2004, 12:05 PM
nice of the srub times to republish a bunch of unsubstantiated, old news hearsay!! hangar ought to track the number of Sox articles in chicago papers that are total unadulterated BS!! :angry:

Lip Man 1
06-22-2004, 12:10 PM
Dan:

Once again your perspective of the Maggs situation is dead on. I have no problem with players walking away from the Sox anymore (I've gotten used to it and expect it) for more money. What bothers me is the fact that every time something like this happens the organization does something on the record or behind the scenes to make it look like the players fault.

If you don't want to pay the guy fine. Admit it. State your case and let the fans decide who was being 'greedy' or 'cheap.' But stop with the leaks and innuendos.

Lip

Brian26
06-22-2004, 12:16 PM
Shut up and wait, bonehead! I hope that article comes back to bite him in the butt.

It's a bit annoying that it became a cover story today, though.

GoSox2K3
06-22-2004, 12:27 PM
The Sox have already made serious efforts and offers to keep him. He wants more. That's his right. Buh Bye.

The Sox will likely keep their payroll in the same range next year as this year - possibly even raising it. So if Magglio walks, and frees up 14mm, what do you think is going to happen to it? JR/KW will use it on another FA - right?
Oh yeah, just like when the Sox said they were going to make a serious offer for Colon and then Anaheim decided to overpay him and the Sox used that $10 million they said they were willing to spend on him to get players such as...uh...hmmm....my memory is failing me, but whoever we got sure has helped fill that 5th starter and/or bullpen hole.

I hope you guys are right and if you are i'll happily admit I was wrong in 2005, but Sox ownership has a credibility gap as far as this is concerned.

sas1974
06-22-2004, 12:33 PM
and pizza makers too. I would never denigrate the people who work in food service, having made it my career choice. I was merely pointing out that what seems expensive in the "real world" has no bearing on the entertainment industry.

I actually heard JR had an offer for 10 years, $195M in his hand and wanted to talk to ARod face to face. Boras said, "No." That is even cheaper, IMO. To come to a room with a minimum bid level with an offer 2.5% below that minimum bid. That is SO JR...

Ever tried to buy into a $10K poker game with $9750? It isn't going to happen...
Actually my burger flipping days ended in high school, but I still know my way around a grill.

I agree that there is no logical comparison that can be made between the salaries us "regular folks" earn and those of professional athletes, but I still think A-Rod and Bor-ass were exceptional greedy and short-sighted.

In hindsight it may have been better for JR to just come out and say that A-Rod's asking price is ridiculously high, as opposed to making him a token offer and attempting to fool us into thinking that he was seriously going to sign him. It would have been something if they would have called his bluff.

GoSox2K3
06-22-2004, 12:48 PM
That's flat wrong. History says: When attendance drops, payroll drops. When attendance rises, payroll rises. Attendance is a leading indicator of payroll. If the Sox continue to contend, and attendance continues to increase, there's no reason to think that payroll will be decreased, in fact the opposite is likely.We'll see. It's sort of a chicken-and-egg attitude by JR. In the past he has slashed payroll, driven the fans away, and then blamed the fan support as the reason why the Sox are a 'small market' team and can't sign anyone.

Now that's not to say that increased attendance = increased offer to Maggs. IMO, the Sox will make what they consider to be an offer at Maggs fair value. If he goes elsewhere for more, then they'll go get someone else.Just like when we made an offer for Colon and he left? Who did we get in his place? And then there was the time we supposedly made an offer for ARod and, when he signed with Texas, we used that money to get.....Royce Clayton? Again, I'm not saying the Sox should break the bank on Maggs and we all know in hindsight that they were right to not break the bank on Colon. But, history has shown that they mislead us into thinking they're making an effort and then don't spend the money on anyone else.

...Go back to the additions of Navarro and Belle. Both were (at the time) big name guys who got pretty sizeable salaries. That those moves didn't work out is not due to any cheapness by ownership. Then move on to David Wells and his $9m salary in '01. Or look at the historical correlation between payroll changes and the prior year's attendance (which have been posted here before). The facts are there.Navarro and Belle were before the White Flag trade (which I think is when ownership officially started running the Sox like they were the Brewers or Expos). As far as David Wells in concerned, instead of spending on a free agent, we traded our best starting pitcher for someone who only had 1 year left on his contract. That's not a winning attitude, that's sell your talent to rent-a-player attitude.

Flight #24
06-22-2004, 01:00 PM
We'll see. It's sort of a chicken-and-egg attitude by JR. In the past he has slashed payroll, driven the fans away, and then blamed the fan support as the reason why the Sox are a 'small market' team and can't sign anyone. .
That doesn't mean he's cheap, it means he's risk averse. Back to the topic at hand, that makes it more likely that he'll spend in the offseason,not that he'll pocket $$$.

Just like when we made an offer for Colon and he left? Who did we get in his place? And then there was the time we supposedly made an offer for ARod and, when he signed with Texas, we used that money to get.....Royce Clayton? Again, I'm not saying the Sox should break the bank on Maggs and we all know in hindsight that they were right to not break the bank on Colon. But, history has shown that they mislead us into thinking they're making an effort and then don't spend the money on anyone else..The mistake you're making is assuming that the increased payroll was the level of signing Colon. The payroll is increased over last year due to raises, etc. Had Colon been signed, other players likely would have been traded with the net stil being a payroll higher than 2003. So it's not that the money went anywhere, it's that they didn't make other corresponding cuts.

And the ARod comparison is ludicrous. You can break the budget for an ARod type of guy because of the buzz and fan itnerest that generates. If you can't get him, it doesn't always make sense to break the budge for a couple of mid-tier guys.

Navarro and Belle were before the White Flag trade (which I think is when ownership officially started running the Sox like they were the Brewers or Expos). As far as David Wells in concerned, instead of spending on a free agent, we traded our best starting pitcher for someone who only had 1 year left on his contract. That's not a winning attitude, that's sell your talent to rent-a-player attitude.
David Wells was an upgrade at SP. Upgrading at a critical position and sacrificing longevity for immediate success is part of the game. Had David performed like he did in any of the 4 years prior or the 2 years since, and had Frank not gone out for the year, that team likely make the playoffs and has a good shot at winning a series. But I guess because the 1 bad year in 6 for Wells was with us and Frank got hurt the organization's not got a winning attitude.:?:

PaulDrake
06-22-2004, 01:10 PM
The naivete concerning the Sox "braintrust" on this thread is staggering. I guess it's a generational thing but I'm not sure. I'm going to watch this thing as close as an outsider can. If it goes down the way I think it will, then after 45 years on the bandwagon I may have to reconsider. I've about had it up to here with this ownership group. Don't want any lectures on loyalty. I was there in the dark days of the late 60's and early 70's screaming my fool head off for my White Sox.

Frankfan4life
06-22-2004, 03:24 PM
I don't take anything written in the papers on face value, but I am also now just willing to say, if Maggs walks, it is totally his decision. This is a two way street, and if things break down, the fault goes both ways.

Is Ordonez being unreasonable? Maybe. But the main point is that someone will be willing to give him what he wants, and that poses a problem for the Sox and their fans.

I don't understand the venom toward Ordonez. He's done nothing but produce year after year. Last year was an "off" year and he still had 99 RBIs. And he has done so with no hint of scandal or trouble. How many years have we had to put with Frank's whining?

If the Sox don't sign Ordonez, the team is sending a message, and it is the wrong one.Thank you for eloquently expressing an opinion I totally agree with.

I will try to make my opinion equally clear to Sox management: Make every effort to sign Maggs.

mdep524
06-22-2004, 04:01 PM
[QUOTE=GoSox2K3]Oh yeah, just like when the Sox said they were going to make a serious offer for Colon and then Anaheim decided to overpay him and the Sox used that $10 million they said they were willing to spend on him to get players such as...uh...hmmm....my memory is failing me, but whoever we got sure has helped fill that 5th starter and/or bullpen hole. [QUOTE]

For the record, the money the Sox were going to spend on Colon went to none other than your rightfielder, #30, Magglio Ordonez. The Sox payroll was to be set at about $60 mil (I'm not saying whether that was good or bad, just statement of fact). To meet that figure, the Sox could only afford one of Colon or Ordonez. Colon walked, so the Sox kept Maggs. If the Sox had signed Colon, Maggs would be patroling rightfield (or the DL) in Los Angeles or Boston right now.

mdep524
06-22-2004, 04:05 PM
That's flat wrong. History says: When attendance drops, payroll drops. When attendance rises, payroll rises. Attendance is a leading indicator of payroll. If the Sox continue to contend, and attendance continues to increase, there's no reason to think that payroll will be decreased, in fact the opposite is likely.

Now that's not to say that increased attendance = increased offer to Maggs. IMO, the Sox will make what they consider to be an offer at Maggs fair value. If he goes elsewhere for more, then they'll go get someone else.

The "Reinsdorf is cheap and always has been" argument makes for nice rhetoric, but isn't borne out by fact. JR is fiscally cautious - he won't spend and hope to get a return. But there's little to no evidence that he won't spend money on a good team. Go back to the additions of Navarro and Belle. Both were (at the time) big name guys who got pretty sizeable salaries. That those moves didn't work out is not due to any cheapness by ownership. Then move on to David Wells and his $9m salary in '01. Or look at the historical correlation between payroll changes and the prior year's attendance (which have been posted here before). The facts are there.
Great post.

GoSox2K3
06-22-2004, 04:40 PM
[QUOTE=GoSox2K3]Oh yeah, just like when the Sox said they were going to make a serious offer for Colon and then Anaheim decided to overpay him and the Sox used that $10 million they said they were willing to spend on him to get players such as...uh...hmmm....my memory is failing me, but whoever we got sure has helped fill that 5th starter and/or bullpen hole. [QUOTE]

For the record, the money the Sox were going to spend on Colon went to none other than your rightfielder, #30, Magglio Ordonez. The Sox payroll was to be set at about $60 mil (I'm not saying whether that was good or bad, just statement of fact). To meet that figure, the Sox could only afford one of Colon or Ordonez. Colon walked, so the Sox kept Maggs. If the Sox had signed Colon, Maggs would be patroling rightfield (or the DL) in Los Angeles or Boston right now.
That just proves my point that the Sox are playing a shell game and deceiving the fans into thinking they are committed to building a winning team when they aren't.

It's funny how the only people on this thread who are saying "cheap" are the JR defenders. That's not the point - the point is that the Sox have a pattern of deceiving us fans by trying to spin things into looking like they are serious about contending when they are not. They're more interested in making themselves look good and passing the blame than just going out and building the best darn team they possibly can.

At least the Sox have finally decided to stop openly blaming the fans for their failures. It took those marketing genius long enough to figure out that was bad for business.

Flight #24
06-22-2004, 04:45 PM
That just proves my point that the Sox are playing a shell game and deceiving the fans into thinking they are committed to building a winning team when they aren't.

It's funny how the only people on this thread who are saying "cheap" are the JR defenders. That's not the point - the point is that the Sox have a pattern of deceiving us fans by trying to spin things into looking like they are serious about contending when they are not. They're more interested in making themselves look good and passing the blame than just going out and building the best darn team they possibly can.


Huh? How exactly did the Sox "spin things" here? The payroll budget was well known, as was the fact that signing Colon would put the team over it (hence requiring additional moves to get back under it). Most if not all fans that I know recognized the linkage between the 2.

Methinks the "shell game" is being played with the facts here to make the Sox management look bad.....

mendozaln
06-22-2004, 04:53 PM
So, if I'm reading this thread right, lots of people are upset by what the Sox say they do, not by what they do. Why?

The Sox didn't pay ARod more than $252 million. I said, good, he's not worth that much. I didn't watch any press conferences, and I didn't really care whether they were serious about any other offers. What's the difference? When did public relations details become so engrossing?

jabrch
06-22-2004, 05:00 PM
Oh yeah, just like when the Sox said they were going to make a serious offer for Colon and then Anaheim decided to overpay him and the Sox used that $10 million they said they were willing to spend on him to get players such as...uh...hmmm....my memory is failing me, but whoever we got sure has helped fill that 5th starter and/or bullpen hole.

I hope you guys are right and if you are i'll happily admit I was wrong in 2005, but Sox ownership has a credibility gap as far as this is concerned.

They did not say they were going to use that money to get anyone else. It saved them having to dump other salary. It saved essentially Magglio from being traded to the Dodgers.

jabrch
06-22-2004, 05:10 PM
That just proves my point that the Sox are playing a shell game and deceiving the fans into thinking they are committed to building a winning team when they aren't.
That's silly. They are committed to doing it on a set budget, or a set profit margin. That does not mean they are not committed to building a winning team. Remember, this team has not finished below third in the division in 14 years, including 4 of those years BEFORE realignment and the three division format. Of those 14 years, we finished 1 or 2 11 times. How can you possibly say this team isn't committed to building a winning team? We may not have yet won a WS, but a lot of teams haven't done that. We may not have many division titles, but that holds for a lot of teams also.

http://baseball-reference.com/teams/CHW/

This team has been fairly successful in many ways. I don't understand your point.

TornLabrum
06-22-2004, 05:29 PM
That's silly. They are committed to doing it on a set budget, or a set profit margin. That does not mean they are not committed to building a winning team. Remember, this team has not finished below third in the division in 14 years, including 4 of those years BEFORE realignment and the three division format. Of those 14 years, we finished 1 or 2 11 times. How can you possibly say this team isn't committed to building a winning team? We may not have yet won a WS, but a lot of teams haven't done that. We may not have many division titles, but that holds for a lot of teams also.

http://baseball-reference.com/teams/CHW/

This team has been fairly successful in many ways. I don't understand your point.
You're right, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're not committed to putting together a winning team, assuming you mean a playoff team and not just a .500+ team. What it does necessarily mean is that they are committed to doing whatever they do on the cheap.

GoSox2K3
06-22-2004, 06:24 PM
Huh? How exactly did the Sox "spin things" here? The payroll budget was well known, as was the fact that signing Colon would put the team over it (hence requiring additional moves to get back under it). Most if not all fans that I know recognized the linkage between the 2.

Methinks the "shell game" is being played with the facts here to make the Sox management look bad.....Sox say they will try to sign all 6 free agents. Sox sign none plus no others. Sox say they will try to sign Colon. It will only happen if they trade Maggs.

SHELL GAME!

GoSox2K3
06-22-2004, 06:31 PM
That's silly. They are committed to doing it on a set budget, or a set profit margin. That does not mean they are not committed to building a winning team. Remember, this team has not finished below third in the division in 14 years, including 4 of those years BEFORE realignment and the three division format. Of those 14 years, we finished 1 or 2 11 times. How can you possibly say this team isn't committed to building a winning team? We may not have yet won a WS, but a lot of teams haven't done that. We may not have many division titles, but that holds for a lot of teams also.

http://baseball-reference.com/teams/CHW/

This team has been fairly successful in many ways. I don't understand your point.
You're happy with always finishing 2nd and you say I'm silly?

If you are happy with perpetual 82 win seasons, that's fine - but if you compare the Sox to other teams appearances and successes in the postseason over the last 20 years, you start to see that only a few teams like the Expos and a few other bottom-feeders have not fared better than us.

GoSox2K3
06-22-2004, 06:34 PM
Ok, I'm done with this thread. I could probably argue this all day - but I know most Sox fans feel my frustration no matter what a few handful of you guys say.

Now, let's see the Sox beat the Indians tonight!

owensmouth
06-22-2004, 06:46 PM
Magglio says that he and Kenny Williams are still talking. Per Bruce Levine (from Maggs today) they are still talking and NOTHING has been decided.

jabrch
06-22-2004, 07:50 PM
You're happy with always finishing 2nd and you say I'm silly?

If you are happy with perpetual 82 win seasons, that's fine - but if you compare the Sox to other teams appearances and successes in the postseason over the last 20 years, you start to see that only a few teams like the Expos and a few other bottom-feeders have not fared better than us.
Who said I was happy about it? But the fact is that it isn't because management is "not committed to winning." as you propose.

Flight #24
06-22-2004, 08:13 PM
Sox say they will try to sign all 6 free agents. Sox sign none plus no others. Sox say they will try to sign Colon. It will only happen if they trade Maggs.

SHELL GAME!
that's called having a selective memory. Sox never said they'd resign everyone - they couldnt, unless they wanted to pay Everett $9mil. They said they wanted to resign Colon & Alomar. They also said budget was $60mil. That necessarily means other payroll would be shed. In fact, it was written about extensively in the papers that they were likely to trade Maggs if they resigned Colon.

A selective or faulty memory does not equal them doing a shell game. Go back and look up the reports if you;ve forgotten.

gosox41
06-23-2004, 12:04 AM
Oh yeah, just like when the Sox said they were going to make a serious offer for Colon and then Anaheim decided to overpay him and the Sox used that $10 million they said they were willing to spend on him to get players such as...uh...hmmm....my memory is failing me, but whoever we got sure has helped fill that 5th starter and/or bullpen hole.

I hope you guys are right and if you are i'll happily admit I was wrong in 2005, but Sox ownership has a credibility gap as far as this is concerned.
Actually, if Colon were signed Magglio would have been traded.


Bob

TornLabrum
06-23-2004, 06:54 AM
Actually, if Colon were signed Magglio would have been traded.


Bob
Which just goes to show how stupid our ownership is.

Lip Man 1
06-23-2004, 10:52 AM
Read Joe Cowley in the Daily Southtown today. He says Mags himself gave him (and a Sun-Times reporter) the information that contract talks were over and that he'd be testing the free agent market.

Further Cowley says Mags gave him specific reasons why he was done with it. Cowley however could not print them because they were 'off the record.' Eventually those reasons will come out and then we can make a better determination if Maggs is being 'greedy,' or if management proposed another 'Reinsdorfian' type contract. (i.e. deferred money without interest, back loaded, incentives, 'out' clauses, 'diminished skills' clauses ect...)

Lip

Flight #24
06-23-2004, 10:54 AM
Which just goes to show how stupid our ownership is.
yeah, because I'm sure if we had both Bart & Maggs and Bartolo was sucking for us(as he is for the Angels) and we weren't contending for the division because of it, Sox fans would still come out to support the team since management made an effort.....

TornLabrum
06-23-2004, 12:02 PM
yeah, because I'm sure if we had both Bart & Maggs and Bartolo was sucking for us(as he is for the Angels) and we weren't contending for the division because of it, Sox fans would still come out to support the team since management made an effort.....
No, because you don't trade you best player in his prime.

Flight #24
06-23-2004, 12:17 PM
No, because you don't trade you best player in his prime.Yeah, Seattle sure regrets trading Randy Johnson......or Ken Griffey Jr.

It all depends on what you get back. If they had gotten (as was rumored then) 2 of the Dodgers top pitching prospects + Mota, then:

1) the team scores fewer runs (although Reed/Borchard would likely be up and the dropoff wouldn't be as huge as it was when Maggs went out)

2) Our starting pitching is better, and we have a guy who can actually close games

So we may not actually be worse off (except for the fact that Bartolo sucks this year).

jabrch
06-23-2004, 12:24 PM
Read Joe Cowley in the Daily Southtown today. He says Mags himself gave him (and a Sun-Times reporter) the information that contract talks were over and that he'd be testing the free agent market.

Further Cowley says Mags gave him specific reasons why he was done with it. Cowley however could not print them because they were 'off the record.' Eventually those reasons will come out and then we can make a better determination if Maggs is being 'greedy,' or if management proposed another 'Reinsdorfian' type contract. (i.e. deferred money without interest, back loaded, incentives, 'out' clauses, 'diminished skills' clauses ect...)

Lip
Lip, for all the bitching you do about ownership, do you really think that you could do it better? I mean that - seriously. If you were a minority owner of this business, could you win a world championship without violating your fiduciary responsibility to your partners? You spend so much time bitching about Reinsdorf, but I hardly ever hear you make suggestions for what can be done about it. You bitch that we don't sign SPs to long term deals, but then when we look at it, that is often the right thing to NOT do. (Colon) You bitch about letting a guy like Magglio go, but signing him to the kind of contract he is currently trying to get (Vlad type money) would not assure that we couldn't be competitive to sign some of the FAs pitchers that we would want. You bitch about the contracts that the Reinsdorf offers, but at the end of the day that is just JR assuring that he gets a player for the money he is spending. He doesn't have an operation with a budget like NYY, BOS, CHN where they can afford to eat a 10mm contract and not have a guy play. They are very selective as to whom they have given money to. (some selections have been wrong, but they would rather let a guy walk who ends up good than sign 2 guys who end up bad. That's risk adverse - not dumb or cheap as you often seem to argue.)

If this is just a personal thing between you and JR - that's cool. But if you have a real suggestion, I'd love to hear it.

Lip Man 1
06-23-2004, 03:56 PM
Jabrch:

I think you'll find this story will answer your question:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=171

The two points I did not mention in the story come out of the San Francisco 49'ers operational plan (as told in Sports Illustrated some years ago...)

1. You hire the very best people in positions of responsibility for your organization. No 'learning on the job,' 'no three time losers' etc... the very best with cost no object. You'll get back many times what you are paying them if they just do their jobs.

2. You let those people do their jobs without any interference under any circumstances.

If you read the story you'll see that I have given this matter some thought. By the way this story came out at WSI in February 2002.

Lip

jabrch
06-23-2004, 04:01 PM
Jabrch:
I think you'll find this story will answer your question:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=171

The two points I did not mention in the story come out of the San Francisco 49'ers opeartional plan (as told in Sports Illustrated some years ago...)

1. You hire the very best people in positions of responsibility for your organization. No 'learning on the job,' 'no three time losers' etc... the very best with cost no object. You'll get back many times what you are paying them if they just do their jobs.

2. You let those people do their jobs without any interference under any circumstances.

If you read the story you'll see that I have given this matter some thought. By the way this story came out at WSI in February 2002.

Lip
Will do Lip...catch you later with more comments - but without having read the article, my one thought is that the cost structure of baseball is very different than it is in the NFL. The salary cap in football is "soft" but it exists. Teams can not overspend by an unlimited amount - and eventually they (like the 49ers have) must pay the piper. SF is hurting now - and will hurt even more the next year or so while they try and rebuild from their recent contractual structures.

Lip Man 1
06-23-2004, 04:08 PM
Jabrch:

With respect I was talking about people in positions of responsibility for your organization.

That means the general manager, field manager, PR director, Media relations director, scouting director etc.

Lip

jabrch
06-23-2004, 04:21 PM
First off, great article - nice piece of writing - I enjoyed it.

We are going to be evaluating and making offers to the top free agents that are available in the baseball market regardless of cost. That's not realistic Lip. You know that. Not in the context of running a business can you go out and make offers to the top FAs. It was not realistic to compete for A-Rod, but we offered him the best they felt they could. It is not realistic to have fit Tejada in our budget this year, nor did it end up feasible to even keep what we had (Colon) while not have to dump other players (Magglio)

Our payroll is going to go up. Itís going to reflect that fact that Chicago is the 3rd largest market in the country both from a population and media standpoint.Payrolls don't reflect the size of the media market - they should reflect the team's operating income. I just don't believe we have a large enough fan base to support having a revnue like Boston does - unless we have an owner who is not interested in running a business for a profit.

For to long the White Sox have ignored the talent coming over from the Far East, from Cuba and from Latin America. As of today this stops.Seems like we do an ok job in this respect - right? Shingo is here. Magglio is here. We seem to do a decent job not being Oklahoma-centric, except with respect to 3Bs drafted out of college. :)

We will try to change the configuration and appearance to make it more desirable for our fans and players alike, but it will not be torn down.

For those of you concerned about the neighborhood, we and the city are going to upgrade and increase the lighting and security in the area. The cost of this upgrade will be split by us and the city. We will do everything humanly possible to make it safe for the fans to attend and enjoy baseball on the South Side.DONE and DONE

In other words, weíll gladly talk about our team and its players as well as their performance and strictly baseball issues. We will not talk about anything else.OK - I think we do a decent job of this - KW isn't the best guy in front of a mic, so he avoids it sometimes - but that's ok with me. Ozzie is a natural in front of the mic and steps up.

we are expecting to average between 2.3 and 2.6 million fans per season for the next five yearsPlausable...

I will formally announce to the city, and the baseball commissioner that I am requesting either contraction of the Chicago White Sox or selling to team to out of city buyers with the stipulation that whoever purchases the team will move it. I personally don't believe that threats, realistic or idle, are the way to accomplish anything. If he threatened me with this, I'd tell him to go F*** himself and I'd still be a Sox fan - just not while he was involved with the franchise.

Anyhow - nice article Lip - Unless your proposal is that 5 years of major deficit spending on the team is going to then either solve the problems, or be justification for JR to quit, I am not sure how this would help. If you are proposing 5 years of deficit spending, then I don't think you are being very realistic. We have a better chance of having him sell, outright, to Trump or some other wealthy person (Trump?) who will engage in that type of business practice. It really is unrealistic to assume that this ownership group will lose money or even sacrifice their current profit margins for 5 years as an investment in the product.

jabrch
06-23-2004, 04:22 PM
Jabrch:

With respect I was talking about people in positions of responsibility for your organization.

That means the general manager, field manager, PR director, Media relations director, scouting director etc.

Lip
ahhh ok...

So you would have wanted a different GM, clearly a different manager, not Brooks for sure, etc. I guess I see your point - although I am not at all unsatisfied with the work those few have done. I am glad Gallas is gone. That was long since due.

Lip Man 1
06-23-2004, 07:00 PM
Jabrch:

My proposal puts the onus on the organization to show the fans that they are serious. Whether or not you agree directly with it I think you'll agree that it's not likely many Sox fans are going to come out to the park in droves without some tangible reason for doing so. In short they are not going to make the first move. Not yesterday, not today, not tomorrow.

In my proposal the organization has to bite the bullet for five years to convince even the most sceptical fans that things are going to be different. In this proposal if the fans don't turn out, the Sox sell and management gets their money back and then some.

As far as the comment about overseas players Shingo is the first Japanese player the Sox have gone out and signed. They got another Japanese player a few years ago in a deal with the Dodgers and he was a disaster. My comment about Latin America was specifically directed toward Cuban and Dominican players who are not subject to the draft. They are free agents and go to the highest bidder. The Sox have never participated in this approach to procuring talent.

Jerry Reinsdorf is the face of the White Sox organization. But it is rare that Jerry Reinsdorf ever talks to the media anymore. He may not like them, but as the CEO of a multi million dollar company, as the steward of a public trust and as someone who has benefitted from tax dollars to build his stadium I think he is obliged to let the media know what is going on. That's why I brought that up in the story.

The last point I wanted to make in the article was that right or wrong, a mea culpa is needed from Jerry Reinsdorf. A number of fans do not like him, rightly or wrongly. An apology would go a long way to mending fences and bringing them back into the fold. The more fans at the park remember means more money for ownership.

"The biggest problem has been from a communication area. The Sox donít appreciate how many breaks the fans will give them if they were open about things. They have a "bunker mentality," that everyone is against them. Iíll give you an example. During the labor situation, any reporter could call any day, and speak with the Commissioner or his management team about what was going on, how things were developing and so on. That was a big change from the past and I think that caused a groundswell of support for the owners side.
The White Sox donít return calls. With them itís always the number of fans that go to Wrigley Field against the number of fans that go to Comiskey Park. Itís an inferiority complex and they blame the media. When I did a column in the Spring evaluating Chicago ownership on both sides of town, I found out that in the past, the team that drew the best usually was winning the most. Itís not that way anymore."--Phil Rogers WSI Interview.

Lip