PDA

View Full Version : Note to KW/JR haters


gobears1987
09-22-2004, 08:49 PM
It is a common threme among JR haters to call him cheap and blame him and KW's refusal to spend for the White Sox woes. I challenge all of them to look at this I found. The Sox have a 20+% higher salary than the Twinkies. If you don't believe me, just take a look. Spending more money won't give us championships so pleae for the love of God, stop the complaining.

http://www.onestopbaseball.com/TeamPayroll.asp

MRKARNO
09-22-2004, 09:02 PM
We should have a 60-80% higher salary than the Twins....

gobears1987
09-22-2004, 09:04 PM
We should have a 60-80% higher salary than the Twins.... That should be in teal, right?

Lip Man 1
09-22-2004, 09:17 PM
No it shouldn't considering the market sizes. Nancy Armour of the AP had a story on the Twins yesterday. The difference between the two payrolls according to her was only around 11 million dollars give or take.

Lip

Patrick134
09-22-2004, 09:21 PM
More money doesn't necessarily equal more wins. Plenty of teams have proven that time and again, last years Mets and this years Orioles coming to mind.

shagar69
09-22-2004, 09:23 PM
It is a common threme among JR haters to call him cheap and blame him and KW's refusal to spend for the White Sox woes. I challenge all of them to look at this I found. The Sox have a 20+% higher salary than the Twinkies. If you don't believe me, just take a look. Spending more money won't give us championships so pleae for the love of God, stop the complaining.

http://www.onestopbaseball.com/TeamPayroll.asp and how many championships to the twins have? yeah, i know that the marlins and angels won it, but for the most part, MOST teams that win the WS have a high payroll

gobears1987
09-22-2004, 09:24 PM
More money doesn't necessarily equal more wins. Plenty of teams have proven that time and again, last years Mets and this years Orioles coming to mind.
Well the Orioles have money behind them (Tom Clancy owns them and he's very rich), plus they draw a lot.

I mean, everyone here bashes JR saying his cheapness is why we are losing. It's not. If wins were based on salary we'd win the Central every year.

gobears1987
09-22-2004, 09:25 PM
and how many championships to the twins have? yeah, i know that the marlins and angels won it, but for the most part, MOST teams that win the WS have a high payroll The angels spend over $100 million

shagar69
09-22-2004, 09:30 PM
The angels spend over $100 millionim talkin about the 02 angels

batmanZoSo
09-22-2004, 09:31 PM
More money doesn't necessarily equal more wins. Plenty of teams have proven that time and again, last years Mets and this years Orioles coming to mind.

No crap, but those teams started out like garbage and threw money in the pile. When healthy, we're an 85-89 win team. Add 20 million to that and we're thinking World Series. In our case, more money would almost surely equal more wins.

fusillirob1983
09-22-2004, 09:35 PM
According to your source, the O's spend less than the Twins, and at least 6 of the top 10 teams in payroll will make the playoffs, unless Houston gets the wild card, and they're number 12. I know there's occasional outliers in both directions (Seattle, Mets, Philly) and (Florida, Minnesota, Oakland), but the general trend shows that if you spend money you'll have a better shot at winning.

gobears1987
09-22-2004, 09:39 PM
According to your source, the O's spend less than the Twins, and at least 6 of the top 10 teams in payroll will make the playoffs, unless Houston gets the wild card, and they're number 12. I know there's occasional outliers in both directions (Seattle, Mets, Philly) and (Florida, Minnesota, Oakland), but the general trend shows that if you spend money you'll have a better shot at winning.
SPending money helps, but I'm trying ot say that we spend the most in the division.

AnkleSox
09-22-2004, 09:44 PM
The twins have a reliable farm system, the white sox don't. You know who we can blame for that?

fusillirob1983
09-22-2004, 09:49 PM
That's true, we do spend the most in the division, but it's about $12 million more. Anaheim spent about $41 million more than Oakland and look who's winning that division. Anaheim has had a pretty good season but they're not in the lead. So there's a general trend of who's good with who spends money, but there are some that stand out such as the Twins and A's.

soxtalker
09-22-2004, 10:09 PM
It is a common threme among JR haters to call him cheap and blame him and KW's refusal to spend for the White Sox woes. I challenge all of them to look at this I found. The Sox have a 20+% higher salary than the Twinkies. If you don't believe me, just take a look. Spending more money won't give us championships so pleae for the love of God, stop the complaining.

http://www.onestopbaseball.com/TeamPayroll.asp

I've never been much of a fan of KW, though I've been willing to cut him a bit of slack in the hope that he's learnt from the mistakes of his early days as GM. And I've been fairly neutral toward JR, though I'm clearly moving in the direction of wanting to see a change at both levels. So, I probably fall into the camp of what you call "KW/JR haters". Having said that, I wish that you wouldn't lump us all together. My objections to both have never had anything to do with payroll.

My primary objection to JR is that he continues to assemble an organization that does poorly. That's probably mostly personnel decisions, though it could also involve systemic issues such as communication and decision protocols. He's very loyal to his people. That's nice if I'm working for him, but it also means that it takes forever for someone who isn't working out to leave. It may become obvious (at some point -- not necessarily now) to most fans and media that KW needs to go, but he'll probably be able to stay around until he wants to leave. I suspect that is true at many levels of the organization.

I have similar organizational complaints with KW. It is a travesty that our farm system is in such disarray, while the Twins -- who have won 3 straight division championships and operate on a lower budget -- are loaded with prospects.

shagar69
09-22-2004, 10:18 PM
The twins have a reliable farm system, the white sox don't. You know who we can blame for that?surely you cant be talking about the GREAT kenny williams?

voodoochile
09-22-2004, 10:29 PM
More money doesn't necessarily equal more wins. Plenty of teams have proven that time and again, last years Mets and this years Orioles coming to mind.
Can you say aberration?

I knew you could...

Read this article I wrote. (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2414)

See the pretty table that accompanys it. (http://flyingsock.com/Columnists/Laffer/PayrollTable.htm)

Then tell me what you think...

batmanZoSo
09-22-2004, 10:34 PM
The twins have a reliable farm system, the white sox don't. You know who we can blame for that?

Schueler.

It takes years for the influence of a GM to wear off to the point where the farm system becomes the true product of his successor's. Hell Schueler's coup de bust we're seeing right now in Joe Borchard. Crede the same.

bc2k
09-22-2004, 10:48 PM
SPending money helps, but I'm trying ot say that we spend the most in the division.
***! You title this thread "Note to KW/JR haters" and then in your defense of KW say how much money JR already spends on the Sox. Well, if the Sox have the highest payroll of the division and don't win the division, then the blame falls on KW because he misused that money! And that's not being a hater, that's saying the TRUF son.

:threadsucks

mdep524
09-22-2004, 10:58 PM
My primary objection to JR is that he continues to assemble an organization that does poorly. That's probably mostly personnel decisions, though it could also involve systemic issues such as communication and decision protocols. He's very loyal to his people. That's nice if I'm working for him, but it also means that it takes forever for someone who isn't working out to leave. It may become obvious (at some point -- not necessarily now) to most fans and media that KW needs to go, but he'll probably be able to stay around until he wants to leave. I suspect that is true at many levels of the organization.

I have similar organizational complaints with KW. It is a travesty that our farm system is in such disarray, while the Twins -- who have won 3 straight division championships and operate on a lower budget -- are loaded with prospects.
THIS is the problem. Thank you soxtalker for taking into account the subtle details and driving factors for the Sox' ineptitude and not settling for the overly-simplistic, misleading and superficial "spend more money" argument.

Lip Man 1
09-22-2004, 11:16 PM
Go Bears:

If you are going to post perhaps you want to get your facts straight. First off Tom Clancy does NOT own the Orioles. Peter Angelos does. Clancy has a very very small share of the team and has no say in the running of the franchise.

Second here's a quote from Bud Selig:

"The record is clear. From 1995 through 2001, a total of 224 MLB postseason games were played. Only five were won by clubs whose payrolls were in the
lower half of the industry. None advanced past the Division Series, and no team, other than those whose payrolls are in the top fourth of payroll, has won a World Series game during this period. The seven-year postseason record is 219-5 (a .978 winning percentage) in favor of the high payroll teams."


That statement was made in early 2002.

Every with the fluke wins by the Angels and Marlins (and neither team even made the post season following their titles) the facts haven't changed that much. You spend money...LOTS of money, your chances of making the post season are tremendously better.

Let's look at this season shall we:

Yankees (big spenders)
Red Sox (big spenders)
Twins (spent 54 million, rather small)
A's (spent about 51 million, rather small)
Braves (big spenders)
Cardinals (big spenders)
Dodgers (big spenders)
Giants (big spenders)
Cubs (big spenders)
Astros (big spenders)

Any questions? 4 of the 6 division winners and both wild card winners are big spenders. That's 6 of 8, 75%.

But feel free to keep thinking the Sox 'small market' mentality is going to reap pennants down the line.

:gulp: :gulp: :gulp: :gulp: :gulp:

Lip

voodoochile
09-22-2004, 11:16 PM
THIS is the problem. Thank you soxtalker for taking into account the subtle details and driving factors for the Sox' ineptitude and not settling for the overly-simplistic, misleading and superficial "spend more money" argument.
Okay, then SPEND MORE MONEY on front office talent...:cool:

voodoochile
09-22-2004, 11:21 PM
A few summary points of the money argument...

JR hires on the cheap for the people who make the baseball decisions.

JR keeps the team below league average regularly for team payroll in the third largest market in the country.

Money does = wins. It's just that simple...

Lip Man 1
09-22-2004, 11:30 PM
Voodoo:
Then why is it so hard for some people to understand?

Maybe to much of this!

:gulp: :gulp: :gulp: :gulp: :gulp:

Lip

voodoochile
09-22-2004, 11:37 PM
Voodoo:
Then why is it so hard for some people to understand?

Maybe to much of this!

:gulp: :gulp: :gulp: :gulp: :gulp:

Lip
Actually, I think it is cognative dissonance (sp?) they so want to believe that the team actually CAN win the World Series under JR that they refuse to look at the hard facts as it will cause them emotional pain. It's easier to live in denial than to admit JR has led this team and the fans astray for the past 24 years...

shagar69
09-22-2004, 11:45 PM
Go Bears:

If you are going to post perhaps you want to get your facts straight. First off Tom Clancy does NOT own the Orioles. Peter Angelos does. Clancy has a very very small share of the team and has no say in the running of the franchise.

Second here's a quote from Bud Selig:

"The record is clear. From 1995 through 2001, a total of 224 MLB postseason games were played. Only five were won by clubs whose payrolls were in the
lower half of the industry. None advanced past the Division Series, and no team, other than those whose payrolls are in the top fourth of payroll, has won a World Series game during this period. The seven-year postseason record is 219-5 (a .978 winning percentage) in favor of the high payroll teams."


That statement was made in early 2002.

Every with the fluke wins by the Angels and Marlins (and neither team even made the post season following their titles) the facts haven't changed that much. You spend money...LOTS of money, your chances of making the post season are tremendously better.

Let's look at this season shall we:

Yankees (big spenders)
Red Sox (big spenders)
Twins (spent 54 million, rather small)
A's (spent about 51 million, rather small)
Braves (big spenders)
Cardinals (big spenders)
Dodgers (big spenders)
Giants (big spenders)
Cubs (big spenders)
Astros (big spenders)

Any questions? 4 of the 6 division winners and both wild card winners are big spenders. That's 6 of 8, 75%.

But feel free to keep thinking the Sox 'small market' mentality is going to reap pennants down the line.

:gulp: :gulp: :gulp: :gulp: :gulp:

Lipthanks for breakin that down!

soxtalker
09-23-2004, 12:51 AM
A few summary points of the money argument...

JR hires on the cheap for the people who make the baseball decisions.

JR keeps the team below league average regularly for team payroll in the third largest market in the country.

Money does = wins. It's just that simple...

Lip makes a good argument, but I suspect that it is not the only -- or even the main -- problem. Even if JR were to hire a GM for a lot of money, I wonder if the organizational problems I referred to in my earlier post might still raise big issues for the new GM. Understand, I am not arguing against more money. It's a little akin to the Bears problem of a few short years ago where there was a constant cry that they hire a good football man to run the organization and then let him do it.

I guess that as I work through this argument I'm becoming more and more convinced that JR nees to go. And, as I said in my earlier post in this thread, I haven't really been a strong JR detractor.

jabrch
09-23-2004, 01:19 AM
and how many championships to the twins have? yeah, i know that the marlins and angels won it, but for the most part, MOST teams that win the WS have a high payroll
And those FLA teams had a lot of losing seasons before they won. Anaheim didn't - they are much more the exception than the rule. Imagine if we were as bad as the Fish for as many years? I know at the end of the day it is about championships, but could you imagine the crybabies if we actually finished 5th, 5th, 3rd, 4th, and 4th in 5 straight years? OMG

StillMissOzzie
09-23-2004, 02:43 AM
Spending money helps, but I'm trying to say that we spend the most in the division.
Now THAT is the textbook definition of a "tallest midget" contest.

SMO
:angry:

jeremyb1
09-23-2004, 03:06 AM
Can you say aberration?

I knew you could...

Read this article I wrote. (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2414)

See the pretty table that accompanys it. (http://flyingsock.com/Columnists/Laffer/PayrollTable.htm)

Then tell me what you think...

No offense Voodo but just glancing over the article, the mathematical calculations don't seem to be extremely statistically and scientifically sound. No one is going to deny the fact that spending money significantly increases your chances of winning but there's obviously a lot more to it than that especially if a team like the A's can consistently win from season to season. If payroll is the key, our payroll is significantly larger than any other team in the division and we should win the division every season.

balke
09-23-2004, 03:21 AM
Actually, I think it is cognative dissonance (sp?) they so want to believe that the team actually CAN win the World Series under JR that they refuse to look at the hard facts as it will cause them emotional pain. It's easier to live in denial than to admit JR has led this team and the fans astray for the past 24 years...
Not only that... but who wants to be a Sox fan in the first place if you convince yourself that you'll never win a WS w/o your owner coughing up the dough? Jerry owns the team, it's his team. If I have no faith that this team could possibly win with "only" 70-80 mil, then why would I watch at all?

Angels, philly, Yankmees, Boston, Mets. They are top 5 payroll teams. 3 (most likely) aren't going to make it into the playoffs. The top 10 teams are pretty much your Playoff teams besides Minne and the A's. Cards are the WS favs, and are 10th on the salary list. 11th is Seattle, about the worst team in baseball. Arizona isn't too far down the list. Last year the Marlins won the world series. There's no written guarantee that the Yanks win this year just because they went out and spent 183 million dollars to do so.

Sox will probably spend next season. They have to be stupid not to. This year we had a good shot at the playoffs, bad bad bad bad bad injuries happened. We blew prospects for that shot. Either next season is our last shot for a while, or we dismantle everything but pitching this offseason, and try to build a better ballclub. I'm not sure which I'm more comfortable w/ at this point.

Aidan
09-23-2004, 03:31 AM
and how many championships to the twins have? yeah, i know that the marlins and angels won it, but for the most part, MOST teams that win the WS have a high payrollWhat about the 2-time champion Marlins? :?:
The twins have a reliable farm system, the white sox don't. You know who we can blame for that?Partly due to bad drafting and mainly due to having a winning team for the past 10 years. Teams that win don't get good draft picks. There's a reason the Twins and the Cubs farm systems are stocked. It isn't from winning year after year.

SOXSINCE'70
09-23-2004, 08:19 AM
It is a common threme among JR haters to call him cheap and blame him and KW's refusal to spend for the White Sox woes. I challenge all of them to look at this I found. The Sox have a 20+% higher salary than the Twinkies. If you don't believe me, just take a look. Spending more money won't give us championships so pleae for the love of God, stop the complaining.

http://www.onestopbaseball.com/TeamPayroll.asp

Payroll be damned!! I'll stop "kvetching" (complaining) when the damn team wins something!! I'm 42 years old.I know Sox fans who have waited 2 to 3 decades longer than I have for them to win a WS.Uncle Jerry's "we'll add payroll if you come to the park" attitude is what really must change.:angry: :angry:

gosox41
09-23-2004, 08:34 AM
No it shouldn't considering the market sizes. Nancy Armour of the AP had a story on the Twins yesterday. The difference between the two payrolls according to her was only around 11 million dollars give or take.

Lip
Lip, that would be about the 20% above being referred to.



Bob

jabrch
09-23-2004, 08:34 AM
What about the 2-time champion Marlins? :?:

They finished 5th twice, 3rd once and 4th twice in their division. They drafted for 5 straight years in the bottom 10. They then took losing teams (54, 64, 76 win teams) and finally went out and added FA pieces on short term contracts.

Imagine the bitching if we did that? This team finishes in 1st or 2nd place for 11 of the last 14 years - and we still have the whiners and the crybabies. Can you imagine if we did what Cleve. or Detroit have done to rebuild, dumping all of our veteran players like Frank, Magglio, etc. while they still had a lot of trade value in the past two or three years, and rebuilding? There'd be a mutiny.

gosox41
09-23-2004, 08:37 AM
and how many championships to the twins have? yeah, i know that the marlins and angels won it, but for the most part, MOST teams that win the WS have a high payroll
We can't even get to the playoffs in a weak division with the highest payroll for 4 straight years. Maybe KW shjould focus on doing that first and worry about the World Series later. You can't get to the WS without making the playoffs.

And, no, I wouldn't be satisifed if the Sox just made it to the playoffs. But that seems to be a big enough challenge for KW and his staff that maybe we should lower expectations for a year or 2.


Bob

gosox41
09-23-2004, 08:40 AM
According to your source, the O's spend less than the Twins, and at least 6 of the top 10 teams in payroll will make the playoffs, unless Houston gets the wild card, and they're number 12. I know there's occasional outliers in both directions (Seattle, Mets, Philly) and (Florida, Minnesota, Oakland), but the general trend shows that if you spend money you'll have a better shot at winning.
Look at it from a different POV. In the Sox division they spend the most money. They pretty much play the same schedule as the Twins. Yet they fail to win their division after spending the most. If money equals wins, then the Sox should have a few division championships by now, right? I mean they do spend the most in their division. SO they should fare better against the $100 mill teams then the Twins do. And since we outspend the Twins we should have a better record against them.


Bob

gosox41
09-23-2004, 08:43 AM
Schueler.

It takes years for the influence of a GM to wear off to the point where the farm system becomes the true product of his successor's. Hell Schueler's coup de bust we're seeing right now in Joe Borchard. Crede the same.
So how many more years are you going to give KW? HE suppsoedly ran the 2000 draft in whcih Borchard was drafted. But even if you count when he first became GM in 2001 as his first draft. He's now had 4. Surely players from the first two should start distinguishing themselves as prospects in the upper levels by now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't minor leaguers FA's after 6 yeares? If that's true, it probably takes less then 6 years to at least develop an upper level prospect or 2.


Bob

gosox41
09-23-2004, 08:53 AM
Go Bears:

If you are going to post perhaps you want to get your facts straight. First off Tom Clancy does NOT own the Orioles. Peter Angelos does. Clancy has a very very small share of the team and has no say in the running of the franchise.

Second here's a quote from Bud Selig:

"The record is clear. From 1995 through 2001, a total of 224 MLB postseason games were played. Only five were won by clubs whose payrolls were in the
lower half of the industry. None advanced past the Division Series, and no team, other than those whose payrolls are in the top fourth of payroll, has won a World Series game during this period. The seven-year postseason record is 219-5 (a .978 winning percentage) in favor of the high payroll teams."


That statement was made in early 2002.

Every with the fluke wins by the Angels and Marlins (and neither team even made the post season following their titles) the facts haven't changed that much. You spend money...LOTS of money, your chances of making the post season are tremendously better.

Let's look at this season shall we:

Yankees (big spenders)
Red Sox (big spenders)
Twins (spent 54 million, rather small)
A's (spent about 51 million, rather small)
Braves (big spenders)
Cardinals (big spenders)
Dodgers (big spenders)
Giants (big spenders)
Cubs (big spenders)
Astros (big spenders)

Any questions? 4 of the 6 division winners and both wild card winners are big spenders. That's 6 of 8, 75%.

But feel free to keep thinking the Sox 'small market' mentality is going to reap pennants down the line.

:gulp: :gulp: :gulp: :gulp: :gulp:

Lip
Yer you fail to mention that one of the small payroll teams making the playoffs has beaten out a bigger payroll team 3 years in a row. What's your excuse there? Spending more money just covers up the real problems in this case.

No doubt spending more increases your odds on winning, but the Sox have proven the last 3 years that outspending the twins by as much as 20% doesn't do much good if you don't put together a good team and spend wisely. Hence my problem with KW.

It's easy to judge what the rich do with their money. But if you believe the Forbe's articles about what the Sox are making then you can see that the profits from the year before plus sometimes more were reinvested in the team and not paid out as dividends.

Instead of talking about moral obligations that ownership allegedly has to put out a winner at any cost, because they are rich why don't we talk about fans obligation to support this team by going to more games. Why don't you fly in mroe often and go to more games? Isn't a die hard fan supposed to support their team through thick and thin? Didn't you say last offseason that even when you were going to be in town you were going to attend less games? Where's the loyalty?

I know you've saide before that you lack the business background, Lip. But things are more complicated then saying: 'He's worth many millions just go spend more. Who cares if it comes out of his personal stash. He owe's it to us.'



Bob

voodoochile
09-23-2004, 10:27 AM
Lip makes a good argument, but I suspect that it is not the only -- or even the main -- problem. Even if JR were to hire a GM for a lot of money, I wonder if the organizational problems I referred to in my earlier post might still raise big issues for the new GM. Understand, I am not arguing against more money. It's a little akin to the Bears problem of a few short years ago where there was a constant cry that they hire a good football man to run the organization and then let him do it.

I guess that as I work through this argument I'm becoming more and more convinced that JR nees to go. And, as I said in my earlier post in this thread, I haven't really been a strong JR detractor.
You would have to spend more at all levels of management and scouting for it tow work. You can't just hire an experienced GM, you need experienced coaches and manager and scouts and minor league instructors and you need patience - something this team has never had with its prospects - because it costs money not only to keep them in the minors longer but because you need to pay veterans on the big league roster to fill the holes the young kids would otherwise.

It isn't just the GM...

Dan H
09-23-2004, 10:35 AM
To Bob regarding his statement about loyalty. There is no loyatly in baseball.

voodoochile
09-23-2004, 10:36 AM
No offense Voodo but just glancing over the article, the mathematical calculations don't seem to be extremely statistically and scientifically sound. No one is going to deny the fact that spending money significantly increases your chances of winning but there's obviously a lot more to it than that especially if a team like the A's can consistently win from season to season. If payroll is the key, our payroll is significantly larger than any other team in the division and we should win the division every season.Thank you for stating my point for me. Yes, the A's win, but they are one of 3 teams who exceed their expected wins with below average payrolls - and yes the Sox are another one of them.

It hasn't always been that way for the Sox. They were not outspending Cleveland in the 90's and the Twins are in the middle of a peak window for their core group, so yes, there are other issues at stake, but like you said, "No one is going to deny the fact that spending money significantly increases your chances of winning."

Injuries do play a roll as does development of minor leaguers. The Twins were terrible for a long long time. Now they are good again. The Sox seem to want to half-ass it. They refuse to go young and cheap and refuse to spend the extra money to cover the problems they know are there when they open the season. Then they try to slap some patches over the problems and keep going and here we sit in September again bemoaning what could have been. Yes, this season (as in 2001) injuries played a major roll in our down turn, but until the Sox start acting like a big market team and stop doing so much to alienate their fan base, they are going to struggle with attendance and with wins.

In the conclusion of that article, I state that the Sox are getting more bang for their buck, but not spending enough bucks. What if the payroll in 2000 was 20M higher? What if it was 20M higher last year? Would that money have led to better results? Would that money have led to a pennant or a championship? No one can say for sure, but I'd like to see what would happen. If the Sox were to win a pennant or a Series, don't you think this town would light up with Sox pride? Don't you think season ticket sales would jump significantly?

Ripe for a winner and JR keeps picking his nits...

Edit: I would also like to ask you to clarify your comments about the numbers not being scientifically or statistically sound. What specifically strikes you as bad and if so can you add anything other than your opinion to that statement? I am not a statistician, but am not bad with numbers and the numbers that came out did support the conclusions of the article. If you can offer some advice or analysis of your own, I would welcome it. If you want to create and submit a rebuttal article, I will be glad to talk to George about having it put on the front page of the site.

kittle42
09-23-2004, 10:50 AM
What about the 2-time champion Marlins? :?:
They bought their first WS.

voodoochile
09-23-2004, 10:55 AM
They bought their first WS.
Buy, Jerry, Buy...:D:

Lip Man 1
09-23-2004, 11:16 AM
Balke says: "Sox will probably spend next season. They have to be stupid not to."

Ummm...you mean like the last off season?


Bob:

The Sox are obligated to show me something, to attract my business and my money. Not the other way around. You keep talking about the 'real world' of business. Fine... don't most businesses have to put a good product out there to attract clients?

Why do you think fans / clients are obligated to make the first move in this case?

Doesn't work that way Bob in the 'real world,' and you know it. If a diner serves crap, I'm not obligated to spend money there so that in the future maybe they'll take that money and hire better chefs.

Can't have it both ways my friend in order to defend Uncle Jerry. :smile:

Lip

Lip Man 1
09-23-2004, 12:23 PM
Bob:

And I'm still waiting for your answer to this question:

"Bob:

Something else (and this is NOT a personal attack on you!). It drives me crazy to see folks post things like 'we need to fire the G.M.' or 'we need to fire the field manager,' or 'we need to get rid of the shortstop...he sucks' without offering ANY alternatives (even just for discussion.)

Let's talk about Williams. You say he needs to be fired. He probably does but I'd love to see a list of potential candidates you think can replace him.

Now let's be clear about certain things.

1. The new candidates need to have previous G.M. experience at the major league level. (As many fans have posted they are sick of guys trying to learn 'on the job.'

2. The new candidates have to understand they are not going to be paid top dollar. They never have in the past.

3. The new candidates have to understand they have a limited budget. (No 90 million dollar payrolls here laddie!)

4. The new candidates have to understand their authority may be limited. (Ever wonder why Williams didn't fire Manuel at the All Star break?)

Now given those parameters I'd love to see who you think would be willing (or desperate) enough to take this job.

It's not that easy to put together a list is it?????

I can only think of one person who might consider the job and that's Dave Dombrowski, who won a title with Florida and is rebuilding Detroit. I say that only because he was hired by Roland Hemond and that loyalty may entice him to come back home. He's from Chicago.

OK...your turn."

Lip

jeremyb1
09-23-2004, 01:26 PM
Thank you for stating my point for me. Yes, the A's win, but they are one of 3 teams who exceed their expected wins with below average payrolls - and yes the Sox are another one of them.

It hasn't always been that way for the Sox. They were not outspending Cleveland in the 90's and the Twins are in the middle of a peak window for their core group, so yes, there are other issues at stake, but like you said, "No one is going to deny the fact that spending money significantly increases your chances of winning."

Injuries do play a roll as does development of minor leaguers. The Twins were terrible for a long long time. Now they are good again. The Sox seem to want to half-ass it. They refuse to go young and cheap and refuse to spend the extra money to cover the problems they know are there when they open the season. Then they try to slap some patches over the problems and keep going and here we sit in September again bemoaning what could have been. Yes, this season (as in 2001) injuries played a major roll in our down turn, but until the Sox start acting like a big market team and stop doing so much to alienate their fan base, they are going to struggle with attendance and with wins.

In the conclusion of that article, I state that the Sox are getting more bang for their buck, but not spending enough bucks. What if the payroll in 2000 was 20M higher? What if it was 20M higher last year? Would that money have led to better results? Would that money have led to a pennant or a championship? No one can say for sure, but I'd like to see what would happen. If the Sox were to win a pennant or a Series, don't you think this town would light up with Sox pride? Don't you think season ticket sales would jump significantly?

Ripe for a winner and JR keeps picking his nits...

Edit: I would also like to ask you to clarify your comments about the numbers not being scientifically or statistically sound. What specifically strikes you as bad and if so can you add anything other than your opinion to that statement? I am not a statistician, but am not bad with numbers and the numbers that came out did support the conclusions of the article. If you can offer some advice or analysis of your own, I would welcome it. If you want to create and submit a rebuttal article, I will be glad to talk to George about having it put on the front page of the site.

Well I certainly agree with you that the team does not spend enough money to win with it's current approach. We're trading many of our best young players for expensive veterans and paying large sums of money to players like Garcia, Konerko, and Contreras. The only place we seem to even attempt to find good deals via free agency is in the bullpen. Apparently we'd rather go with someone like Gload at 1B than try to sign someone like Millar. That's a problem in my opinion. If we want to go young we need to keep our Reeds, Rauchs, and Olivos and give guys like Diaz an actual chance. If not KW has to learn how to ferret out good values for position players as he did with guys like Gordon and Loaiza on the pitching staff.

I think we could possibly win with our approach if we had 20 million dollars more but it's pretty clear that's not going to happen so I think we need to alter the organizational philosiphy some. If you only have fifty cents, KW, don't try to build a team by spending a dollar and coming up short, try to spend your fifty cents well.

As far as the statistics, two things struck me as problematic. First, simply dividing the teams into an upper and lower half and then three quartiles in terms of payroll and comparing the payrolls in that manner. There may not be a ton of difference between the 10th highest and 11th highest payroll or there may be (which there probably is) more difference between the highest payroll and the fourth highest than between the 8th highest and the lowest. For that reason, I think you'd want to look at it on a payroll by payroll basis by looking at a correlation between wins and dollars spent.

The other problem I had may be more of a philosophical disagreement than a statistical one but I find it hard to judge playoff wins based on payroll. If a team's payroll is good enough to get them to the playoffs, it should be good enough for them to win. Virtually any team can get on a hot streak and run the table in October. Even if the teams with more money are better, saying that the team with the 110 millin payroll won more games than the team with the 95 million payroll is probably significant over the course of 162 games in the regular season but not over the course of 20 or maybe only five depending on how far the team goes, in the playoffs.

Ol' No. 2
09-23-2004, 02:32 PM
Can you say aberration?

I knew you could...

Read this article I wrote. (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2414)

See the pretty table that accompanys it. (http://flyingsock.com/Columnists/Laffer/PayrollTable.htm)

Then tell me what you think...Good article. I took a look at this issue a while back, too, but I used a somewhat different approach. I dug up all the salary data I could get, going back to the mid 80's. To account for increases over time, I scaled each year's team payrolls by the MLB average for that year. The 90th percentile was 143% and the 10th percentile was 57%. I then computed a regression of winning percentage with the scaled salary. Two significant bits of information came out.

1. The slope was 0.076, i.e. A team with a payroll of twice the league average would be expected to have a winning percentage of .576 (93-69). It's worth noting that only the 2003 Yankees exceeded twice the average for that year.
2. The correlation was lousy. I got an R-squared of 0.12. For you non-statheads, that means that only 12% of the total variation in winning percentage could be attributed to salary differences, or to put it another way, 88% of the variation in winning percentage was due to other factors.

Bottom line: Money matters, but other stuff matters more.

If you like, I can send you the data.

jeremyb1
09-23-2004, 04:15 PM
I scaled each year's team payrolls by the MLB average for that year. The 90th percentile was 143% and the 10th percentile was 57%. I then computed a regression of winning percentage with the scaled salary.

Yeah, that's more what I personally had in mind for this type of study Voodoo. Regression, correlation, things I'm not particularly good at myself but I have a rudimentary understanding of in principle.

Jerome
09-23-2004, 04:29 PM
Championships come from the minors. (Unless you are the Yankees). KW should be blamed for

a. Not drafting good players.
b. Trading away farm system.

I don't like JR, but the blame for this team lies squarely on the shoulders of KW and injuries. And since every team has to deal with injuries, I'm blaming mostly KW.

It costs a lot of money to sign top FAs, but it doesn't cost much money to draft good players.

voodoochile
09-23-2004, 10:27 PM
Good article. I took a look at this issue a while back, too, but I used a somewhat different approach. I dug up all the salary data I could get, going back to the mid 80's. To account for increases over time, I scaled each year's team payrolls by the MLB average for that year. The 90th percentile was 143% and the 10th percentile was 57%. I then computed a regression of winning percentage with the scaled salary. Two significant bits of information came out.

1. The slope was 0.076, i.e. A team with a payroll of twice the league average would be expected to have a winning percentage of .576 (93-69). It's worth noting that only the 2003 Yankees exceeded twice the average for that year.
2. The correlation was lousy. I got an R-squared of 0.12. For you non-statheads, that means that only 12% of the total variation in winning percentage could be attributed to salary differences, or to put it another way, 88% of the variation in winning percentage was due to other factors.

Bottom line: Money matters, but other stuff matters more.

If you like, I can send you the data.
What about over time. You seem to have done this on a season by season situation. I was trying to look at whether higher payroll is more likely over time to mean more wins - thus more times making the playoffs and more cracks at the big prize. Also, average payroll for pennant and Series winners in the article I wrote clearly were outspending teams who merely "made the playoffs" by a significant margin.

I understand the stats you are talking about, but didn't have the background to run those stats myself on the data I generated. Still, I am always happy to look at other data and would welcome looking at whatever you put together.

If it is posted to a website, post the link. If not, you can e-mail it to: voodoochile@whitesoxinteractive.com.

Hope it's in a format I can open... I have access to Windows XP and MS Office XP.

santo=dorf
09-23-2004, 10:48 PM
a. Not drafting good players.
Some players drafted from 2001-2004:

Kris Honel
Royce Ring (who people have finally stopped :whiner: over)
Ryan Wing
Jeremy Reed (the new prospect that people now :whiner: over)
Brandon McCarthy
Brian Anderson
Ryan Sweeney


I'm sure other posters (Rex Hudler, Jeremyb1, and Randar68) who follow the minor leagues name you more.

fusillirob1983
09-24-2004, 01:04 AM
Yeah, can you send me that data. I'd be interested to see it.

rmpeters@uiuc.edu

gosox41
09-24-2004, 08:37 AM
To Bob regarding his statement about loyalty. There is no loyatly in baseball.
That's for sure and it's a shame. I just think that if certain people here (not you) are going to bother to make thousands of posts about this team then they should maybe go to a few more games. If one cares enough to spend all this time posting then maybe supporting the team and being positive may be a good idea.



Bob

gosox41
09-24-2004, 08:49 AM
Balke says: "Sox will probably spend next season. They have to be stupid not to."

Ummm...you mean like the last off season?


Bob:

The Sox are obligated to show me something, to attract my business and my money. Not the other way around. You keep talking about the 'real world' of business. Fine... don't most businesses have to put a good product out there to attract clients?

Why do you think fans / clients are obligated to make the first move in this case?

Doesn't work that way Bob in the 'real world,' and you know it. If a diner serves crap, I'm not obligated to spend money there so that in the future maybe they'll take that money and hire better chefs.

Can't have it both ways my friend in order to defend Uncle Jerry. :smile:

Lip
SO why do you spend so much time and effort posting here? Seriously, I value my time more then I do the money it would take for me and my family to attend a couple of games.

And if a diner served a bad meal to you, would you be spending all this time and effort writing nasty posts on the internet and to restaurant critics? Or would you just let it go and if someone asked you if you wanted to go back just say no and explain why.

You talk of moral obligations that ownership has to spend and win at pretty much any cost. You opened up that can of worms. So why can't the same standard be held to fans? If you're going to criticize others then you should be open to the same criticism. Besides the fact that a die hard fan probably loves his team and just wants to see games, why not support the team a little bit.

Last year's team was in a pennant race until mid-Sept. From the above post it sound like you did nothing special to go out of your way to support this team. Never happy, are you?

I am very critical of KW because I think he is bad for the franchise. But I am also a season ticket holder who goes to about 60-65 games a year. As much as I do have problems with KW running this team into the ground, I love the game of baseball and the White Sox too much to just give them up. I won't list the other positives about the Sox as you'll find something negative about them, but not everything is doom and gloom. This is after all a game.


Bob

gosox41
09-24-2004, 08:56 AM
Championships come from the minors. (Unless you are the Yankees). KW should be blamed for

a. Not drafting good players.
b. Trading away farm system.

I don't like JR, but the blame for this team lies squarely on the shoulders of KW and injuries. And since every team has to deal with injuries, I'm blaming mostly KW.

It costs a lot of money to sign top FAs, but it doesn't cost much money to draft good players.

BUt it's not KW's fault. The draft is a crapshoot to begin with.

But there are other teams (without naming names as it might get too much of a rise out of some people...probably jealousy) that have drafted and developed a few #1 type pitchers. And people here still attribute that to luck.

So really, KW is just unlucky. That's all it is. It's not his fault at all. While that other GM on that other team that has 3 #1 starts has been nothing but lucky.


Bob

jabrch
09-24-2004, 09:21 AM
KW should be blamed for

b. Trading away farm system.

Ah yes - this one again...It never gets old.

voodoochile
09-24-2004, 10:31 AM
That's for sure and it's a shame. I just think that if certain people here (not you) are going to bother to make thousands of posts about this team then they should maybe go to a few more games. If one cares enough to spend all this time posting then maybe supporting the team and being positive may be a good idea.



Bob
This is the lamest argument in the history of the world. Almost every poster on these boards goes to as many games as they can find time, money and permission to go to.

Sure some of them are on strike, but how many is that? 10? 20?

Your suggestion that people here don't support the team when they spend 3-5 hours a day talking, thinking, watching them or attending games is simply sad and silly.

The point remains: JR made this mess with his underhanded, shoddy business practices. He has lied. He has cheated. He has stolen our legacy and then he has blamed us - repeatedly.

I get so tired of the JR sympathizers pulling out this same tired crap. Living in NC, I spent as much money as I could this season just to watch Sox games. Many others do the same.

If there were an award for "dumbest post of the week" these tired cliched ridiculous repetitive "go to more games you fake fans" would get it every freaking time...

Just because of your last post, it's official...

:threadsucks:

Hangar18
09-24-2004, 11:19 AM
This is the lamest argument in the history of the world.

Your suggestion that people here don't support the team when they spend 3-5 hours a day talking, thinking, watching them or attending games is simply sad and silly.

The point remains: JR made this mess with his underhanded, shoddy business practices. He has lied. He has cheated. He has stolen our legacy and then he has blamed us - repeatedly.

I get so tired of the JR sympathizers pulling out this same tired crap. Living in NC, I spent as much money as I could this season just to watch Sox games. Many others do the same.

If there were an award for "dumbest post of the week" these tired cliched ridiculous repetitive "go to more games you fake fans" would get it every freaking time...

Just because of your last post, it's official...


I also dont come down on people who go to Less games vs More games etc,
but to say Lip shouldnt complain so much etc, bottom line is, this is a community, and everyone has a diff angle. SOme of us are Stat guys, some arent. some are positive, some are negative (maybe im in this category) but the premise of the thread .......is.........a Note to Those
of Us who DONT LIKE JR (im in this camp, and its fine for those to defend him in a devils advocate kind of way, but Really, the YEARS of evidence against him are COMPELLING) this thread is dumb, weve talked about this
many times. Just because the PAYROLL went up, it wasnt because JR TRIED VEHEMENTLY to lower it. HE DIDNT get the key players he needed,
and the result is were Watching the Cubs in the playoffs ......Again.

JR's secret and FOOLISH notion of them being in the playoffs and being SUCCESSFUL is somehow going to Trickle Down and make him even Richer
is Foolhardy

balke
09-24-2004, 12:52 PM
....some are positive, some are negative (maybe im in this category)....

....and the result is were Watching the Cubs in the playoffs ......Again.

I think you answered your own question. Think positive, go Mets!

SOXSINCE'70
09-24-2004, 01:12 PM
[QUOTE=voodoochile]
The point remains: JR made this mess with his underhanded, shoddy business practices. He has lied. He has cheated. He has stolen our legacy and then he has blamed us - repeatedly.
I get so tired of the JR sympathizers pulling out this same tired crap. Living in NC, I spent as much money as I could this season just to watch Sox games. Many others do the same.[QUOTE]

Not many could say it better.You are correct.:angry: :angry:

gosox41
09-24-2004, 01:19 PM
This is the lamest argument in the history of the world. Almost every poster on these boards goes to as many games as they can find time, money and permission to go to.

Sure some of them are on strike, but how many is that? 10? 20?

Your suggestion that people here don't support the team when they spend 3-5 hours a day talking, thinking, watching them or attending games is simply sad and silly.

The point remains: JR made this mess with his underhanded, shoddy business practices. He has lied. He has cheated. He has stolen our legacy and then he has blamed us - repeatedly.

I get so tired of the JR sympathizers pulling out this same tired crap. Living in NC, I spent as much money as I could this season just to watch Sox games. Many others do the same.

If there were an award for "dumbest post of the week" these tired cliched ridiculous repetitive "go to more games you fake fans" would get it every freaking time...

Just because of your last post, it's official...

:threadsucks:


Acutally what's lame is that so many people here feel the need to tell JR how to spend his money. This has nothing to do with legacies or lying. It has all to do with people who feel the need to constantly say JR needs to jack his payroll up at any cost. But I guess you kind of got my point. We have no business complaining about White Sox payroll anymore then I do telling people to go to more games while operating on a budget. But it's not going to stop them, is it?

And, yes, I find it funny that people spend hours on a message board complaining about something they're avoiding. Seems a little unhealthy to me. Complaining about something you can't control. Also complaining about something that you don't want to financially support. Talk the talk but won't walk the walk. If anyone is that miserable or hateful or negative towards the SOx organziation (and if you read some posters here that is the case) move on. Life is to short to post 5000 messages complaining about how the Sox break one's heart and everything is doom and gloom. If it makes one that miserable, ignore it. Don't watch the team, don't read about the team and don't post about the team. Move on.

But if individuals are going to spend all this time criticizing about issues they don't even undestand then they do open themselves up to be questioned. They can do/think what they want, but I can still question why they devote so much time to something they hate.


Bob

Dan H
09-24-2004, 01:31 PM
That's for sure and it's a shame. I just think that if certain people here (not you) are going to bother to make thousands of posts about this team then they should maybe go to a few more games. If one cares enough to spend all this time posting then maybe supporting the team and being positive may be a good idea.



Bob
My point has always been that loyalty has to be a two-way street. The White Sox can show loyalty by doing two things: Stop blaming the fans, and stop bad mouthing Ordonez in the media. Create a more positive atmosophere and you will see more fans at the park.

Lip Man 1
09-24-2004, 01:44 PM
Hey Bob:

How about answering the question that I've now asked for the 3rd time? You keep saying Williams needs to be fired.

Fine. Give us a list of possible replacements in your opinion who'll work under the self imposed conditions and do a better job.

Sounds a little hypocritical to me to be making comments about things but not be willing to offer a solution (even for discussion purposes.)

I've been a fan of the Sox for 44 years. I'm loyal to the entity. I'm not loyal to the person who owns them. Big difference.

And in the past you have pontificated that you actually have respect for those who say they don't like ownership and don't compromise by spending money supporting him. You've called out those fans for complaining yet happily go to the park and give their money away. Now you're complaining about those same folks for not supporting the same ownership.

Which is it Bob?

Lip

gosox41
09-26-2004, 08:43 AM
My point has always been that loyalty has to be a two-way street. The White Sox can show loyalty by doing two things: Stop blaming the fans, and stop bad mouthing Ordonez in the media. Create a more positive atmosophere and you will see more fans at the park.
Loyalty is a 2 way street. And the Sox haven't made comments lately about blaming the fans for not winning this year.

As for Ordonez, depending on the seriousness of his bone marrow edema (or bone bruise or whatever it is) there has been info. posted here how long term it can lead to arthrities or degenration in the knee.

The Sox would be wise to shut up about him. But they ar expressing concern about his injury. He is just now starting to rehab, so obviously the injury was somewhat serious and potentially career threatening.

Meanwhile, thank goodness Magglio didn't show more loyalty and less greed when the Sox were trying to sign him to a long term deal. If he was really happe here he could have taken his $65 mill over 5 years and been done with this. Sure some of it was deferred, but there are rules in MLB as to how much can be deferred an with today's low interest rates "only" making $58-60 mill in 5 years and getting the rest deferred isn't going to hurt him. That is of course if he were happy and loyal.



Bob

gosox41
09-26-2004, 09:06 AM
Hey Bob:

How about answering the question that I've now asked for the 3rd time? You keep saying Williams needs to be fired.

Fine. Give us a list of possible replacements in your opinion who'll work under the self imposed conditions and do a better job.

Sounds a little hypocritical to me to be making comments about things but not be willing to offer a solution (even for discussion purposes.)

I've been a fan of the Sox for 44 years. I'm loyal to the entity. I'm not loyal to the person who owns them. Big difference.

And in the past you have pontificated that you actually have respect for those who say they don't like ownership and don't compromise by spending money supporting him. You've called out those fans for complaining yet happily go to the park and give their money away. Now you're complaining about those same folks for not supporting the same ownership.

Which is it Bob?

Lip
I think everyone has a right as to how the feel. But this was more guided towards you then any group of fans. You've had 5400 posts here. How many have complained about about his team, 5000 or so? You claim you love this team but then rarely say anything positive. If I felt about my wife the same way you felt about this team, I'd probably divorce her. And while loving a baseball team isn't the same (to me) as loving a person, my point is that if something makes you this upset the move on. I mean you actually make comments about JR that pretty much wish he were dead. That's healthy?

I actually have respect for those Sox fans who said 'Screw JR, I'm never supporting this team again and paying no attention to them.' They upped and moved on. They don't make countless hours of posts and they rarely watch games. But at least there actions are consistent with their words. Now, on the flip side, 10 years is a long time to hold a grudge, but at least they've moved on.

As for the GM issue. KW has done a bad job. You've admitted it to, just not in those words. But when you come out and talk about how bad the minor league system is, that's an indictment on KW. And while budget constraints are an issue and I'd love to see the SOx spend more or even take out some debt, I can't blame them for not. If you believe Fortune or Forbes or whatever magazine prints out how much the team makes (and they're wrong and usually on the high side) then you can see that whatever profit the team makes is getting reinvested back in the team. The fact is that a team of this payroll should be able to win the AL Central a lot. The fact that Minnesota has done it with less proves that point.

But back to GM's. Since Day 1 I wanted Evans over KW. ANd I'd hire him right now if it meant getting rid of KW. I never said he'd be my #1 choice but just a better option. But over the last couple of years I have suggested the Sox pursue guys like Billy Beane (when there was talk of leaving Oakland), JP Riccardi, Paul DePodesta to name a few. And it's not because of all of this 'MoneyBall' theory. It's the fact that they've worked in a tighter monetary environment and have made the playoffs there. Work is busy now and I haven't had much time to look into what ex-GM's are available or who is out there or who is up and coming. I do think Tony LaRussa would make a better GM then KW, though his best strength is probably managing.

Why don't you find a solution to the ownership problem? All you do is complain and wish for JR to die. Why not put together a group of investors to buy him out. You seem to know so much about the finances of this team and how JR is rolling in the money from owning this team, that I'm sure you can convince some rich people to buy a ML team. Sell them on the fact that they could make a ton of money, like you think JR does. Play to their egos about winning and getting all this media attention. I hope it works. I'd like to see JR gone, but for different reasons then his payroll.


Bob

mdep524
09-26-2004, 11:11 AM
Acutally what's lame is that so many people here feel the need to tell JR how to spend his money. This has nothing to do with legacies or lying. It has all to do with people who feel the need to constantly say JR needs to jack his payroll up at any cost. But I guess you kind of got my point. We have no business complaining about White Sox payroll anymore then I do telling people to go to more games while operating on a budget. But it's not going to stop them, is it?

And, yes, I find it funny that people spend hours on a message board complaining about something they're avoiding. Seems a little unhealthy to me. Complaining about something you can't control. Also complaining about something that you don't want to financially support. Talk the talk but won't walk the walk. If anyone is that miserable or hateful or negative towards the SOx organziation (and if you read some posters here that is the case) move on. Life is to short to post 5000 messages complaining about how the Sox break one's heart and everything is doom and gloom. If it makes one that miserable, ignore it. Don't watch the team, don't read about the team and don't post about the team. Move on.

But if individuals are going to spend all this time criticizing about issues they don't even undestand then they do open themselves up to be questioned. They can do/think what they want, but I can still question why they devote so much time to something they hate.


Bob
This is the best post of the thread. I am critical of Sox management- for poor scouting, poor resource allocation, poor marketing (until Brooks stepped in), poor general managing, and increasingly worse field managing. But I still go to games. 14 of 'em this year. Because it's still cool to go to the park. Would I go to more if they showed a bit more intelligence and were more competitive? Definitely! But as a Chicago area Sox fan, I go to *some* games for recreation and enjoyment.

Anyone who thinks not going to a game is going to effect some kind of sweeping change in the organization is naive and fooling themselves. Its your prerogative to not go to games, and I certainly don't blame anyone for not going, especially considering how little effort was shown from this team last winter. In reality, the only way the organization is going to change (for the better), is if the skeptical fans come out in droves and the Sox average 28,000/game for a mediocre team. I am not advocating that, I'm just sayin'. If you really wanted to see a difference in management's strategy, you'd fill the park everyday.

I understand the now-famous restaurant metaphor of good food first. And that totally makes sense, so like I said, I don't blame anyone for not coming. But as nice as that metaphor is in theory, professional sports sadly doesn't quite work that way. Do you think the Cubs would have such a high payroll now if, among other reasons, fans hadn't come out like crazy to support really crappy teams over the past 10 years (and those teams were much worse than this Sox team). These are just some things to think about when evaluating the situation. Again, I'm not saying anybody's right or wrong, but it's not quite as cut and dry as some overly-simplistic arguments make it seem.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-26-2004, 11:33 AM
....Anyone who thinks not going to a game is going to effect some kind of sweeping change in the organization is naive and fooling themselves. Its your prerogative to not go to games, and I certainly don't blame anyone for not going, especially considering how little effort was shown from this team last winter....
I don't disagree but I would just as quickly add that there isn't anyone posting at WSI who has ever advocated not going to games simply to smite Jerry Reinsdorf or the Sox front office. If anything, WSI is filled with posters who are completely frustrated by being a fan of a team that is perpetually stuck in neutral for fixing what has caused this 87 year dry patch.

....In reality, the only way the organization is going to change (for the better), is if the skeptical fans come out in droves and the Sox average 28,000/game for a mediocre team. I am not advocating that, I'm just sayin'. If you really wanted to see a difference in management's strategy, you'd fill the park everyday.
Okay, now THIS is truly off the charts naive. The Sox were one of the best-drawing teams in the major leagues in the early-90's with 100 diamond suites and a fat big-market TV/radio deal, and a sweetheart lease on a brand-new ballpark built to their precise specifications... and yet the Sox front office still managed to piss it all away.

Put down the crack pipe and join the rest of us who know the reality behind what Jerry Reinsdorf *says* and what Jerry Reinsdorf *does*. You simply make yourself look foolish arguing this point.

....Again, I'm not saying anybody's right or wrong, but it's not quite as cut and dry as some overly-simplistic arguments make it seem.
Here's the simplest solution: After 24 seasons of futility, Jerry Reinsdorf sells the team and somebody more committed to winning takes his place. You want to make it more complicated? Fine, you're fighting 23 years of history that says you're flat-wrong about all the other complicated winning solutions that leave Reinsdorf at the helm.

chisoxt
09-26-2004, 11:45 AM
I've never been much of a fan of KW, though I've been willing to cut him a bit of slack in the hope that he's learnt from the mistakes of his early days as GM. And I've been fairly neutral toward JR, though I'm clearly moving in the direction of wanting to see a change at both levels. So, I probably fall into the camp of what you call "KW/JR haters". Having said that, I wish that you wouldn't lump us all together. My objections to both have never had anything to do with payroll.

My primary objection to JR is that he continues to assemble an organization that does poorly. That's probably mostly personnel decisions, though it could also involve systemic issues such as communication and decision protocols. He's very loyal to his people. That's nice if I'm working for him, but it also means that it takes forever for someone who isn't working out to leave. It may become obvious (at some point -- not necessarily now) to most fans and media that KW needs to go, but he'll probably be able to stay around until he wants to leave. I suspect that is true at many levels of the organization.

I have similar organizational complaints with KW. It is a travesty that our farm system is in such disarray, while the Twins -- who have won 3 straight division championships and operate on a lower budget -- are loaded with prospects.
I nominate this for "Post of the Year", as it brings up so many points that hit home. The most important one being that JR is ultimately responsible for the people who work under him, If you look at his track record at hiring key people, he has been careless, to say the least. Every GM and manager hired by him has had very little experience, and not surprisingly, many of those ultimately failed, especially in the first year or two on the job. If the Sox are ever going to consistently contend, his hiring mindset has to change. It is not going to matter how much money we spend, the fact is, if we do not have a smart personnel in charge, I guarantee you that the wrong decesions will be made.

mdep524
09-26-2004, 12:38 PM
I don't disagree but I would just as quickly add that there isn't anyone posting at WSI who has ever advocated not going to games simply to smite Jerry Reinsdorf or the Sox front office. If anything, WSI is filled with posters who are completely frustrated by being a fan of a team that is perpetually stuck in neutral for fixing what has caused this 87 year dry patch.True, but there is certainly a significant number of fans out there wo don't go to games purely because of JR. The 1994 strike is, 10 years later, still being cited as a reason to not go to a Sox game.

Okay, now THIS is truly off the charts naive. The Sox were one of the best-drawing teams in the major leagues in the early-90's with 100 diamond suites and a fat big-market TV/radio deal, and a sweetheart lease on a brand-new ballpark built to their precise specifications...And there is a serious corrleation between attendance and payroll during this time period. After having the lowest payroll in all of MLB from 1988 through 1991, look what happened in the mid 90s:

Year..... Sox' MLB Payroll rank
1992...... 17th
1993...... 13th
1994...... 5th
1995...... 5th
1996...... 5th
1997...... 3rd

Not too bad! The Sox were among the top 5 spenders in all of baseball for '94 - '97... Then the White Flag trade happened. <Cough>

...and yet the Sox front office still managed to piss it all away. No arguments here. The WFT destroyed a lot of credibility with this organization. What a shamefully awful decision.

Here's the simplest solution: After 24 seasons of futility, Jerry Reinsdorf sells the team and somebody more committed to winning takes his place. You want to make it more complicated? Fine, you're fighting 23 years of history that says you're flat-wrong about all the other complicated winning solutions that leave Reinsdorf at the helm.Now who's being naive? JR ain't goin' nowhere. So like it or not, we're just going to have to accept it and work around it.

gosox41
09-26-2004, 12:49 PM
I nominate this for "Post of the Year", as it brings up so many points that hit home. The most important one being that JR is ultimately responsible for the people who work under him, If you look at his track record at hiring key people, he has been careless, to say the least. Every GM and manager hired by him has had very little experience, and not surprisingly, many of those ultimately failed, especially in the first year or two on the job. If the Sox are ever going to consistently contend, his hiring mindset has to change. It is not going to matter how much money we spend, the fact is, if we do not have a smart personnel in charge, I guarantee you that the wrong decesions will be made.

You're right. My problem with JR isn't the payroll. It's the fact that he hires inept people and is extremely loyal to them to the nth degree. It's why he keeps losers like Gallas and KW along so long. Not many organizations would hang on to such inept management. But then again it all starts with JR. I wish less people would complain about moneya nd more complain about the real issue: bad management. That's why the team should be sold.


Bob

gosox41
09-26-2004, 12:57 PM
True, but there is certainly a significant number of fans out there wo don't go to games purely because of JR. The 1994 strike is, 10 years later, still being cited as a reason to not go to a Sox game.

And there is a serious corrleation between attendance and payroll during this time period. After having the lowest payroll in all of MLB from 1988 through 1991, look what happened in the mid 90s:

Year..... Sox' MLB Payroll rank
1992...... 17th
1993...... 13th
1994...... 5th
1995...... 5th
1996...... 5th
1997...... 3rd

Not too bad! The Sox were among the top 5 spenders in all of baseball for '94 - '97... Then the White Flag trade happened. <Cough>

No arguments here. The WFT destroyed a lot of credibility with this organization. What a shamefully awful decision.

Now who's being naive? JR ain't goin' nowhere. So like it or not, we're just going to have to accept it and work around it.

You're actually posting stats. A lot of people here don't want to look into the numbers because they're confusing and made up. But you're right. The WFT trade did hurt credibility. And JR isn't going anywhere for awhile. So it's pointless for people to come in here and complain about it. It is what it is.

But on the flipside, one thing I will give KW credit for is at least using his best efforts (however menial) to try to put a winning team out there. A lot of these negative people don't mention that the Sox added payroll in the middle of a pennant race in 2003 and 2004. That should hopefully win back some credibility, though it hasn't. Instead we continually read threads of cheapness and lowering payroll. Both are wrong if you believe Forbes magazine (which I don't). He spends what he has. And the Sox have not lowered payroll the last 2 seasons.

The problem is, in business terms, a misallocation of assets. Pretty much means the Sox have overspent in some areas it would have been wise to cut costs so they can spend it in other areas. That falls on Kenny Williams as GM of this team.


Bob

Lip Man 1
09-26-2004, 02:43 PM
Bob:

The rational is irrelevent. Whether or not it's that he doesn't spend enough (true) or hires cheap incompetent people (also true as I have long said if you'll bother to look through those 5,500 posts). The only think that matters is that Uncle Jerry disappears as soon as possible.

and thank you for pointing out that 44 years of loyalty means squat to you, all that matters is how many times someone goes to a game and fills the pocket of ownership. That's the true measure of loyalty! LOL

Spoken like a true businessman!

Hey maybe since you are such a successful businessman who can afford to go to 60 games a year and who 'knows' some of the other investors maybe you can put together a syndicate to buy the club. Then you can run it even more cheaply then current ownership, since profit is all that seems to matter to you. That's the recurring thread through all of your posts defending current ownership.

Lip

PaleHoseGeorge
09-26-2004, 03:24 PM
Now who's being naive? JR ain't goin' nowhere. So like it or not, we're just going to have to accept it and work around it.Who is the "we're" you are referring to here? Go ahead, you can admit it.
:cool:

See, this is where your whole argument falls to bits -- as it inevitably must. I'm not the one "saying JR ain't goin' nowhere." You're the one making EXCUSES for him by bringing the subject up! "He ain't going nowhere" has nothing to do with fixing the problems you're allegedly trying to solve! We already know spending more money to line JR's pockets solves nothing. Unlike you, the rest of us remember the early-90's when JR got EVERYTHING he wanted.

"He ain't going nowhere" is pure jabberwocky... the notion that the CUSTOMERS are somehow at fault for the failure of MANAGEMENT. "Hey if all the K-mart customers just kept shopping at K-mart (or as you comically assert, shop EVEN MORE AT K-Mart), Wal-mart wouldn't be beating the daylights out of America's former #1 retailer."

You and Bob are standing American business principles on their head with this line of reasoning, blaming the customers. If Jerry Reinsdorf is in a financial pickle, it is a financial pickle 100 percent of his own making. Fortunately he can sell the team for over 10-times what he paid for it and get out from the financial albatross you're attempting (futilely, I might add) to blame the fans for creating.

Go ahead and keep replying. I'm enjoying watching you squeeze your head tighter and tighter into the illogical vice you're trapped in.

mdep524
09-26-2004, 04:17 PM
See, this is where your whole argument falls to bits -- as it inevitably must. I'm not the one "saying JR ain't goin' nowhere." You're the one making EXCUSES for him by bringing the subject up! "He ain't going nowhere" has nothing to do with fixing the problems you're allegedly trying to solve!

"He ain't going nowhere" is pure jabberwocky... the notion that the CUSTOMERS are somehow at fault for the failure of MANAGEMENT. "Hey if all the K-mart customers just kept shopping at K-mart (or as you comically assert, shop EVEN MORE AT K-Mart), Wal-mart wouldn't be beating the daylights out of America's former #1 retailer."

You and Bob are standing American business principles on their head with this line of reasoning, blaming the customers. If Jerry Reinsdorf is in a financial pickle, it is a financial pickle 100 percent of his own making. Fortunately he can sell the team for over 10-times what he paid for it and get out from the financial albatross you're attempting (futilely, I might add) to blame the fans for creating.

Go ahead and keep replying. I'm enjoying watching you squeeze your head tighter and tighter into the illogical vice you're trapped in.
George, I've always respected your views on this board, but you are totally missing my point on this one. First of all, how is "he ain't going nowhere" jabberwocky? Jerry Reinsdorf enjoys owning the Chicago White Sox, he is not going to sell the team because some website posters are upset with him. A change of ownership is a long, long way off, so if that's what you are waiting for to somehow solve all the team's woes, it seems unlikely. "Jerry Reinsdorf" is just a name anyway. It could be "Joe Schmoe," it really doesn't matter because there are many investors that own the team along with JR, and they are a big, big part of the financial restrictions that JR always takes the blame for. That is just the structure of this team, there's really nothing we can do about that.

I'm not squeezing my head tighter at all, in fact I haven't changed my position from the get go: JR has mismanaged this team, no question, with awful decision making and inept baseball minds. You say that I am trying to blame the fans for the financial albatross- I am not! If you re-read my last post, I said that the '97 White Flag Trade cost JR and the Sox organization a lot of credibility and contributed greatly to the "financial albatross." The thing is, that is in the past now, and we can all talk about it until we're blue in the face but you can't change the past. You have to learn from it and move on. What happens *now* IS open for debate. That is changeable.

So I don't really know what you are questioning from my post. The only thing that I see that we are differing on is you see JR selling the team as a solution and I don't see it happening.

I guess one question I have for you is this: why haven't you responded to the payroll stats I posted earlier? The Sox had the 3rd highest payroll in all of baseball in 1997, an indication that when attendance is up so is the payroll. You seem to have no comeback for that. Another point is the fact that Carl Pohlad is a much cheaper, more apathetic owner than JR and his team has been in the playoffs for the last three years. So clearly you don't need a Steinbrenner to build a winner.

I'm not getting all riled up about this, I'm just stating the other side of the argument, which deserves to be heard as well.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-26-2004, 04:31 PM
George, I've always respected your views on this board, but you are totally missing my point on this one. First of all, how is "he ain't going nowhere" jabberwocky? Jerry Reinsdorf enjoys owning the Chicago White Sox, he is not going to sell the team because some website posters are upset with him. A change of ownership is a long, long way off, so if that's what you are waiting for to somehow solve all the team's woes, it seems unlikely. "Jerry Reinsdorf" is just a name anyway. It could be "Joe Schmoe," it really doesn't matter because there are many investors that own the team along with JR, and they are a big, big part of the financial restrictions that JR always takes the blame for. That is just the structure of this team, there's really nothing we can do about that.

I'm not squeezing my head tighter at all, in fact I haven't changed my position from the get go: JR has mismanaged this team, no question, with awful decision making and inept baseball minds. You say that I am trying to blame the fans for the financial albatross- I am not! If you re-read my last post, I said that the '97 White Flag Trade cost JR and the Sox organization a lot of credibility and contributed greatly to the "financial albatross." The thing is, that is in the past now, and we can all talk about it until we're blue in the face but you can't change the past. You have to learn from it and move on. What happens *now* IS open for debate. That is changeable.

So I don't really know what you are questioning from my post. The only thing that I see that we are differing on is you see JR selling the team as a solution and I don't see it happening.

I guess one question I have for you is this: why haven't you responded to the payroll stats I posted earlier? The Sox had the 3rd highest payroll in all of baseball in 1997, an indication that when attendance is up so is the payroll. You seem to have no comeback for that. Another point is the fact that Carl Pohlad is a much cheaper, more apathetic owner than JR and his team has been in the playoffs for the last three years. So clearly you don't need a Steinbrenner to build a winner.

I'm not getting all riled up about this, I'm just stating the other side of the argument, which deserves to be heard as well.
1.) Who is "we're" you are referring to? How is "we're" solving the problems I thought we were trying to solve here, namely making the Sox winners for the first time in 24 seasons of JR ownership?

2.) Payroll is your strawman argument, not mine. As has been pointed out countless times around here, plenty of teams have more success than the Sox WITHOUT the big payroll, WITHOUT the big-market TV/Radio deal, WITHOUT the 100 diamond suites, WITHOUT the sweetheart lease on a brand new ballpark built to spec. Why haven't I responded to your strawman argument? Same reason you haven't responded to mine.

3.) I'm not saying JR selling is the solution. I'm saying it is the SIMPLEST solution. The notion we can expect a more complicated solution to work (such as emptying our wallets into JR's pocket) is a solution not grounded one bit in the reality we all know has happened the past 24 seasons since JR bought the team. Sure, it might happen... JR might do what he has NEVER done before... and monkeys might fly out of my butt, too.

4.) You need to consider who is the one being negative in this thread. Unless you're offering solutions that include JR as owner (and are prepared to defend them here from hysterical laughter), "JR ain't going nowhere" is precisely the attitude of a loser who has already thrown in the towel. That's what I call negative.

mdep524
09-26-2004, 04:57 PM
1.) Who is "we're" you are referring to? How is "we're" solving the problems I thought we were trying to solve here, namely making the Sox winners for the first time in 24 seasons of JR ownership?We=the White Sox community. Sox fans, WSI, etc. It's interesting, fun and a common passion of ours.

2.) Payroll is your strawman argument, not mine. As has been pointed out countless times around here, plenty of teams have more success than the Sox WITHOUT the big payroll, WITHOUT the big-market TV/Radio deal, WITHOUT the 100 diamond suites, WITHOUT the sweetheart lease on a brand new ballpark built to spec. Why haven't I responded to your strawman argument? Same reason you haven't responded to mine.What's yours, specifically?

3.) I'm not saying JR selling is the solution. I'm saying it is the SIMPLEST solution. The notion we can expect a more complicated solution to work (such as emptying our wallets into JR's pocket) is a solution not grounded one bit in the reality we all know has happened the past 24 seasons since JR bought the team. Sure, it might happen... JR might do what he has NEVER done before... and monkeys might fly out of my butt, too. A simplier solution is for Aaron Rowand, Frank Thomas and Willie Harris to bat .700 next year and Mark Buehrle, Freddie Garcia, Jon Garland and Danny Wright to have 0.20 ERAs. Neither that nor the "Sell JR Sell" is going to happen. There has to be SOME other way!

4.) You need to consider who is the one being negative in this thread. Unless you're offering solutions that include JR as owner (and are prepared to defend them here from hysterical laughter), "JR ain't going nowhere" is precisely the attitude of a loser who has already thrown in the towel. That's what I call negative.I'm certainly not an overly-negative guy, if that's what you're reading in to my posts here your misreading me. I don't consider you overly negative either. The sentence "JR ain't going nowhere" is a statement, not an opinion. It's not meant to be positive or negative. A thought like "This team will never win with JR as its owner" sounds more negative than mine.

My solution is for JR to surround himself with better baseball people, who will build a better baseball team, which fans like, which will bring more fans to the park, which will increase revenue, which the ownership likes. Then everybody's happy. :D:

Except Hangar because we don't have Kenny Rogers. :redneck

PaleHoseGeorge
09-26-2004, 05:02 PM
....
Wow. This is really beyond stupid. I spell out EXACTLY why I don't believe any payroll administered by JR will ever make the Sox winners, and you turn around and claim you still don't know what I'm talking about?
:kukoo:

Sorry, I don't waste my time clowning around with the likes of you.

You and Bob can keep right on blaming the fans. See if you get one ****ing word out of me.

mdep524
09-26-2004, 05:09 PM
Wow. This is really beyond stupid. I spell out EXACTLY why I don't believe any payroll administered by JR will ever make the Sox winners, and you turn around and claim you still don't know what I'm talking about?
:kukoo:

Sorry, I don't waste my time clowning around with the likes of you.

You and Bob can keep right on blaming the fans. See if you get one ****ing word out of me.
George, I'm not blaming the fans! I've said that twice. And sorry for wasting your time, I actually enjoyed the discussion.

Lip Man 1
09-26-2004, 10:22 PM
Mdep says: "A change of ownership is a long, long way off, so if that's what you are waiting for to somehow solve all the team's woes, it seems unlikely."

Jerry Reinsdorf will be 70 in February. Perhaps you need to define your terms regarding a 'long, long way off.'

and I agree with PHG, expecting Uncle Jerry to solve many of the problems that he created himself is the ultimate in wishful thinking.

Lip

gosox41
09-27-2004, 10:05 AM
Bob:

The rational is irrelevent. Whether or not it's that he doesn't spend enough (true) or hires cheap incompetent people (also true as I have long said if you'll bother to look through those 5,500 posts). The only think that matters is that Uncle Jerry disappears as soon as possible.

and thank you for pointing out that 44 years of loyalty means squat to you, all that matters is how many times someone goes to a game and fills the pocket of ownership. That's the true measure of loyalty! LOL

Spoken like a true businessman!

Hey maybe since you are such a successful businessman who can afford to go to 60 games a year and who 'knows' some of the other investors maybe you can put together a syndicate to buy the club. Then you can run it even more cheaply then current ownership, since profit is all that seems to matter to you. That's the recurring thread through all of your posts defending current ownership.

Lip
Actually it was spoken like someone who wonders how an individual can be so happy complaining all the time. Nothing to do with business. But actions do speak louder then words. Also, spoken like someone who wonders how an individual can judge how another individual spends their money but can't take it right back.

Also, profit is not all that matters to me. Show me where I said that. What I said is that JR is taking any profits from thsi team one year and reinvesting it in next season. He's not taking the profits to the bank or lighting up $100 bills to light cigars.

While I would like to see JR take out debt and jack up the payroll, I can't blame him if he won't. How? Because I don't go out and take on debt personally so why would I expect someone else to? And the reason I don't blame ownership for not taking out debt is because of fans like you Lip. Honestly. The one's who are always complaining about payroll and moral obligations yet fail to go to any games. You're one of those people that I don't think will ever be happy with the Sox. Your misery in the team is what keeps you going. If JR did take on $10-15 mill. in debt I think you would still be here complaing about market size and how the Cubs do this and Boston does that. No matter what JR spends you will never be happy.

But for the record, I think it is a worthwhile risk to take on $10-15 mill. in debt. But it's hard to fault him for not taking on that risk.


But I'll get a syndicate of investors together as well as throw in every last penny I have because Forbe's has shown me that owning a baseball team generates a ton of free cash.


Bob

jabrch
09-27-2004, 10:33 AM
MLB debt covenants also forbit certain levels and types of debt....just a side note.

JKryl
09-27-2004, 11:20 AM
No crap, but those teams started out like garbage and threw money in the pile. When healthy, we're an 85-89 win team. Add 20 million to that and we're thinking World Series. In our case, more money would almost surely equal more wins.
But, it's really not that simple. You have a large hole with Mags and Frank being out. You still need another starter, and what do you do about third base if Crede continues to fail. Finally, how about a quality veteran catcher? Even if you get the money, you still have to find available players willing to come over.

jabrch
09-27-2004, 11:33 AM
Well, from the Krause/Reinsdorf playbook we can send Southpaw on the road with KW to go pursue the top name FAs. I can see KW and Southpaw showing up at the Drew's ranch in Georgia... And KW looking more out of place than the big green snuffalopogous.

How bout send them down to Latin America on an advance scouting mission. Southpaw The Enforcer, can get us some latin american talent.

Lip Man 1
09-27-2004, 12:12 PM
Jabrch says: "MLB debt covenants also forbit..."

Not trying to be sarcastic but could you translate this please? Seriously I can't figure out what you are trying to say.

Lip

Hangar18
09-27-2004, 01:28 PM
Mdep says: "A change of ownership is a long, long way off, so if that's what you are waiting for to somehow solve all the team's woes, it seems unlikely."

Jerry Reinsdorf will be 70 in February.

Say ........... This is Good News Somewhat. Uncle Jerry isnt getting Younger ................ HAPPY BDAY JERRY!!!!!

jabrch
09-27-2004, 03:38 PM
Jabrch says: "MLB debt covenants also forbit..."

Not trying to be sarcastic but could you translate this please? Seriously I can't figure out what you are trying to say.

Lip

Sorry - typos all over.

MLB owners are subject to certain guidelines. They have changed over the years to restrict the amount and the type of debt that teams may undertake. These debt covenants restrict the instruments of debt that the ownership group may use. So in some cases, rather than incurring debt, the team has to add equity in order to spend. An owner like Moreno had no problem adding equity to the team. Steinbrenner just uses existing revenue and equity. This ownership group is limited to what it can do. That's actually why so many teams defer contracts rather than take out debt to convert the deferred/backloaded portions into current $.

An individual owner, or a wealthy corporate owner can do a lot of things that a large ownership group of people with smaller stakes may not do. Part of our ownership's problem is that JR is only one of many owners. He alone can not authorize the partnership to increase its equity stake in the team, or to take on debt. Some of his partners would not want to add, say an extra 1,000,000 out of their own pockets in investment in the team -even if JR did.

Is that a bit more clear?

maurice
09-27-2004, 04:26 PM
You also need to keep in mind that:
- JR is an expert in finance
- JR likely had a hand in drafting the MLB financing guidelines
- Irrespective of financing, JR will never authorize a budget that even temporarily puts the Sox in the red

:KW
"You can't spend a dime when you only have a nickle."

Lip Man 1
09-27-2004, 06:07 PM
You're talking about the 60/40 rule that was re-enforced by Proud To Be Your Bud in 2002 as a means of supposedly trying to help the economic conditions but in reality was another smoke screen to limit owners from signing high priced free agents.

Gotta love those creative owners!

Lip

gosox41
09-28-2004, 12:27 AM
You're talking about the 60/40 rule that was re-enforced by Proud To Be Your Bud in 2002 as a means of supposedly trying to help the economic conditions but in reality was another smoke screen to limit owners from signing high priced free agents.

Gotta love those creative owners!

Lip
Or to stop teams from leveraging themselves to the hilt and having to go to MLB's office for a loan to meet payroll like the diamondbacks did a few years ago.

You can argue the rule is to limit high salaries. But that fact that so many teams were breaking this rule shows that baseball is not the cash cow you think it is. If it were, there would 1. be no reason for the rule or 2. if the rule did exist it wouldn't effect as many teams as it does.

BTW, Lip, I think it was Gammons who wrote that the Angels may cut payroll by as much as $20 million or roughly 18-20%. I don't know if Boston is right about this but it will be interesting to see what happens this offseason. It should make you wonder happened to his new fangled idea of lowering prices across the board to make money? I'm shocked it didn't work.

And before you go on the 'at least he spend $100 mill while Uncle Jerry didn't so he needs to die' dialog try being a neutral observer to your attitude for a second.

There's a chance that the Angels won't make the playoffs in 2004 with a payroll just over $100 mill. Why not? So, because you like to get on JR, I'm sure you're going to criticize Moreno for letting guys go (assuming he does cut payroll) when he should be spending even more money to get to the playoffs. I mean if $100 mill. isn't good enough, maybe $115 mill. would do it. But how could a guy who is worth more then JR not up his payroll to win?

I know you don't care about the Angels, but you have brought up what a revolutionary Moreno is. So I assume you'll at least give him some criticism for cutting payroll by 20%. I mean this guy might be even more plotting then JR. Maybe he cut prices and jacked up payroll with the hopes of creating a splash as a new owner, but his plan all along was to cut payroll. Pretty devious if it's true.


Bob

Lip Man 1
09-28-2004, 01:38 PM
Which means if he cuts it 20 million he'll still have a hell of a team at 92 million. and again that's IF he cuts twenty million. I think it'll be far less then that simply by losing a few injured free agents (like Glaus).

Hey how about Bartolo's 17 wins?, not bad for an 'out of shape,' 'greedy' pitcher eh?

Lip

jabrch
09-28-2004, 02:12 PM
Mdep says: "A change of ownership is a long, long way off, so if that's what you are waiting for to somehow solve all the team's woes, it seems unlikely."

Jerry Reinsdorf will be 70 in February. Perhaps you need to define your terms regarding a 'long, long way off.'

and I agree with PHG, expecting Uncle Jerry to solve many of the problems that he created himself is the ultimate in wishful thinking.

Lip

I don't think JR's passing would lead to a change of ownership. JR is the chairman of the board - but there are many people who own shares of the Sox. Unless the entire board was waiting for JR to leave to suddenly invest their own (outisde of the team's equity) capital or to suddenly sell the team after JR is gone, then a new Chairman will take his place running the same structured board. It would likely be one of his right hand men - and someone with no particular reason to do anything different than the board had approved JR do to in the past.

jabrch
09-28-2004, 02:15 PM
You're talking about the 60/40 rule that was re-enforced by Proud To Be Your Bud in 2002 as a means of supposedly trying to help the economic conditions but in reality was another smoke screen to limit owners from signing high priced free agents.

Gotta love those creative owners!

Lip

Paint it how negatively you want it Lip - hell, lets call it the suicide rule - it sounds better that way. But the purpose was to keep teams from going out and taking on debt to sign players and then not being able to afford them a few years down the road and having situations where wholesale firesales become the norm. Now feel free to spin it however negatively you like...

jabrch
09-28-2004, 02:22 PM
Hey how about Bartolo's 17 wins?, not bad for an 'out of shape,' 'greedy' pitcher eh?

Lip
5.19 ERA, 1.41 WHIP you want that?

How bout this guy instead..
4.95 era, 1.38 WHIP? That's Jon Garland - If we paid Colon money and got Garland performance, you'd be bitching for MONTHS.


There is nothing impressive about Colon's 13mm season, or the fact that his contract is now property of Anaheim for 3 more years.

Wealz
09-28-2004, 02:25 PM
Mdep says: "A change of ownership is a long, long way off, so if that's what you are waiting for to somehow solve all the team's woes, it seems unlikely."

Jerry Reinsdorf will be 70 in February. Perhaps you need to define your terms regarding a 'long, long way off.'

and I agree with PHG, expecting Uncle Jerry to solve many of the problems that he created himself is the ultimate in wishful thinking.

Lip
Curious, why do you refer to him as "Uncle Jerry"?

gosox41
09-28-2004, 02:40 PM
Which means if he cuts it 20 million he'll still have a hell of a team at 92 million. and again that's IF he cuts twenty million. I think it'll be far less then that simply by losing a few injured free agents (like Glaus).

Hey how about Bartolo's 17 wins?, not bad for an 'out of shape,' 'greedy' pitcher eh?

Lip
Funny how Jabarch put up some stats that show that Jon Garland is actually having an equivalent ot slightly better year then Colon.

But there are those dreaded numbers again that you don't like. So think of it like this. I know you haven't been to the Cell lately but it's become quite a hitters ball park. Do you tihnk Colon would have better or worse numbers here or in Anaheim? Also, one more thing. 17 wins is nice and all, but hte run support he's getting in Anaheim is more then he gets off the Sox minus Thomas and Ordonez.



Bob

fuzzy_patters
09-28-2004, 03:17 PM
A lot of people have posted the Sox payroll over the years to support their personal viewpoint. What might be more interesting would be to compare the Sox spending on scouting and player development. It seems that these are the areas the Twins do better in. Perhaps this is where the discrepancy in spending is between Minnesota's low payroll and their high on field results.

jabrch
09-28-2004, 03:22 PM
Funny how Jabarch put up some stats that show that Jon Garland is actually having an equivalent ot slightly better year then Colon.

But there are those dreaded numbers again that you don't like. So think of it like this. I know you haven't been to the Cell lately but it's become quite a hitters ball park. Do you tihnk Colon would have better or worse numbers here or in Anaheim? Also, one more thing. 17 wins is nice and all, but hte run support he's getting in Anaheim is more then he gets off the Sox minus Thomas and Ordonez.



Bob
My point exactly...Colon would not have won 17 games or had such wonderul stats had he been here. Lip will bitch that JR and KW didn't spend the money on Colon, but thank goodness Lip isn't running the team. We'd be saddled with more liabilities and another dog of a contract. No problem though - Since Lip and his ownership committee won't be so greedy, they will just pull another 20mm each out of their own pockets and that will solve the problem.

shagar69
09-28-2004, 03:23 PM
5.19 ERA, 1.41 WHIP you want that?

How bout this guy instead..
4.95 era, 1.38 WHIP? That's Jon Garland - If we paid Colon money and got Garland performance, you'd be bitching for MONTHS.


There is nothing impressive about Colon's 13mm season, or the fact that his contract is now property of Anaheim for 3 more years.
you cant say that colon wouldnt of been different here! just cuz he was that bad in anaheim, doesnt mean that he would of been just as bad here

balke
09-28-2004, 03:28 PM
you cant say that colon wouldnt of been different here! just cuz he was that bad in anaheim, doesnt mean that he would of been just as bad here
..........


Are you serious? Colon was just about as bad here as he was in ANaheim. YOu are the one who can't say he WOULD be better. He's a fast-ball pitcher pitching home games in California. Definitely more advantage for him there. He used to get rocked here on cold days, and Hawk would have to make excuses for him. I (coming back to the White Sox last season) couldn't belive we wanted to pay him 12-13 mil. He wasn't near worth it IMO.

shagar69
09-28-2004, 03:32 PM
..........


Are you serious? Colon was just about as bad here as he was in ANaheim. YOu are the one who can't say he WOULD be better. He's a fast-ball pitcher pitching home games in California. Definitely more advantage for him there. He used to get rocked here on cold days, and Hawk would have to make excuses for him. I (coming back to the White Sox last season) couldn't belive we wanted to pay him 12-13 mil. He wasn't near worth it IMO.
im not saying that he WOULD of been better. im saying that he COULD of been better. who knows? he could of been a cy young winnner, or been one of the worst SP in the AL. we will never know. point is that we didnt spend the money to resign him and had a hole at 5th starter the entire season

balke
09-28-2004, 03:35 PM
Colon = Contreres + 9 mil.

mdep524
09-28-2004, 03:37 PM
im not saying that he WOULD of been better. im saying that he COULD of been better. who knows? he could of been a cy young winnner, or been one of the worst SP in the AL. we will never know. point is that we didnt spend the money to resign him and had a hole at 5th starter the entire season
This is the stupidest argument I have ever seen. Hey, maybe if we traded for Brian Anderson from KC he "COULD of been better" than his 5-12 record and 5.85 ERA if he pitched in the hitters paradise of The Cell as well. The key is to just project him to have done better if we spent more $$$$$.

Lip Man 1
09-28-2004, 03:54 PM
Jabrch says: "No problem though - Since Lip and his ownership committee won't be so greedy, they will just pull another 20mm each out of their own pockets and that will solve the problem."

If I owned the team Jabrch that's EXACTLY what I'd do. I can't understand the mentality of millionairs and billionairs who are all going to die sooner or later. How much money do you need to live? That's like the person who owns a Corvette and then bitches about the insurance.

If you are wealthy enough to own a professional sports team then you are wealthy enough to pay whatever it takes to win.

I could live easily on 300,000 a year. These owners can do the same.

Carl Pohland is worth over two Billion dollars for example yet he has the gall to think Minnesota should build him a ballpark?

These owners have enough money for their families and relatives to not have to work for generations, yet they complain about player salaries?

That's not profit gang... that's called greed.

Lip

nodiggity59
09-28-2004, 04:24 PM
That's not profit gang... that's called greed.

Lip
While part of me agrees Lip, another part of me wonders if I'd be willing to put up my money after, say, the Albert Belle fiasco. Just something to think about.

shagar69
09-28-2004, 05:07 PM
This is the stupidest argument I have ever seen. Hey, maybe if we traded for Brian Anderson from KC he "COULD of been better" than his 5-12 record and 5.85 ERA if he pitched in the hitters paradise of The Cell as well. The key is to just project him to have done better if we spent more $$$$$.
it doesnt matter how hes pitching. the fact is that we didnt PAY THE MONEY!! i dont care how he is pitching! and by the way, he has been GREAT in september and will lead the Angels to the AL west championship!

jabrch
09-28-2004, 05:33 PM
If I owned the team Jabrch that's EXACTLY what I'd do. I can't understand the mentality of millionairs and billionairs who are all going to die sooner or later. How much money do you need to live? That's like the person who owns a Corvette and then bitches about the insurance.
If I had an 18 inch dong, I'd be a porn star. That's easy to say. But it's a lot harder to do. The 40 or so investors in this team chose, back a while ago, to invest in a limited partnership. They knew how much money they were investing, and were liable only to the extent of that investment. They likely didnot want a sinkhole where they would have to pour more money in it.

Here's the difference - you are a fan. They, in the capacity we are talking about, are businessmen. This is their business. You happen to be a big fan of their business. But how YOU as an individual feel it should be run is largely irrelevant to them. Certainly your logic that they should each shell out 500,000 from their own pockets to increase spending on this team is crazy logic. Why should they suddenly do that? That's not the investment that they initially bought. That's not the investment vehicle that they wanted. They wanted a one time buy in.

Lip, that is how it is. You can bitch and cry all you want - and be as miserable as possible about it. But it aint changing.

This team's ability to win or lose will be wholly decided by the talent that the GM puts in the lockerroom on his budget, and on the ability of the manager and the players to get the most from that talent. At no point in time under this regime is it likely that we will see a spending spree sufficient to make you happy.

Lip Man 1
09-28-2004, 06:15 PM
Jabrch:
Your comment was about ownership (i.e. ONE owner) not a partnership at least that's how I read your meaning and answered accordingly.

"Remember that you are the temporary custodians of an enduring public trust..." -- A. Bartlett Giamatti.

and your point about changing anything is exactly correct, which is why we should close WSI down since NOTHING anybody discusses in ANY of the threads is going to change a damn thing.

So why are you here Jabrch wasting your time???

Lip

benjamin
09-28-2004, 07:12 PM
it doesnt matter how hes pitching. the fact is that we didnt PAY THE MONEY!! i dont care how he is pitching! and by the way, he has been GREAT in september and will lead the Angels to the AL west championship!
A 4.34 ERA and more hits allowed (39) than innings pitched (37.1) are now considered GREAT? Because that's what Colon has done so far in September.

Heck, under that loose definition of GREAT, I might have to get back on the mound and consider a comeback because on that scale I would surely be able to be considered MEDIOCRE.

gobears1987
09-28-2004, 07:40 PM
MY 1st Tomato Award!!!:bandance::dtroll::bandance:
:tomatoaward

jabrch
09-28-2004, 08:05 PM
Jabrch:
Your comment was about ownership (i.e. ONE owner) not a partnership at least that's how I read your meaning and answered accordingly.

"Remember that you are the temporary custodians of an enduring public trust..." -- A. Bartlett Giamatti.

and your point about changing anything is exactly correct, which is why we should close WSI down since NOTHING anybody discusses in ANY of the threads is going to change a damn thing.

So why are you here Jabrch wasting your time???
\Lip
Lip, I never said a single owner - that's not what we have.


and your point about changing anything is exactly correct, which is why we should close WSI down since NOTHING anybody discusses in ANY of the threads is going to change a damn thing.

You want to have intelligent discusion here - or resort to that type of assinine crap?

I am not wasting my time - I never said that.

You, Lip, can stop putting words in my mouth whenever you like and discuss the real issues - rather than the pile of red herring you keep bringing to the table day in and day out.

Lip Man 1
09-28-2004, 10:13 PM
Jabrch:

I was talking about 'ownership' in general not automatically the White Sox, you assumed that.

And what are the 'real issues,' what issues can we discuss that ownership will give a damn about?

Answer: None

So again I ask a valid question... if that bothers you so much they why are you here wasting your time even discussing solid issues since ownership won't be changed by them?

Thank you.

Lip

Mohoney
09-28-2004, 10:32 PM
More money doesn't necessarily equal more wins.
The Yankees have gone to 6 World Series since the '94 strike, when "money started getting out of hand", and have won 4 of them. Being in the World Series 67% of the time, and winning it 44% of the time, seem well worth the investment.

I'll tell you what. I would LOVE to be in a position to be upset in the World Series by a team with a smaller payroll.

I would LOVE to even ATTEND Game 1 of the WORLD SERIES.

I've never had that experience, and under your plan, I never will.

Flight #24
09-28-2004, 10:34 PM
I could live easily on 300,000 a year. These owners can do the same.

Lip, without knowing or caring what it is that you make, I can almost guarantee that there are those who live quite happily on less. So why shouldn't you live like them and donate the excess to charitable endeavours?

Like it or not, owners for the most part have earned their money, they have no obligation to do anything with it that they don't choose to. If they want to make sure that their great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren are wealthy, that's 100% their right.

Baseball, like many other things is a business. If that business makes an arrangement to get public subsidies, great. They are responsible for whatever they contract to do, nothing more. Baseball has no more responsibility for owners to invest personal $$$ in teams because they have stadiums publicly funded than Boeing's executives & majority shareholders do because they get tax breaks.

Mohoney
09-28-2004, 10:34 PM
If I had an 18 inch dong, I'd be a porn star. That's easy to say. But it's a lot harder to do.
Tell me about it.

Mohoney
09-28-2004, 10:40 PM
Certainly your logic that they should each shell out 500,000 from their own pockets to increase spending on this team is crazy logic. Why should they suddenly do that? That's not the investment that they initially bought. That's not the investment vehicle that they wanted. They wanted a one time buy in.

At no point in time under this regime is it likely that we will see a spending spree sufficient to make you happy.
Then SELL! If they don't care, SELL!

This is Chicago. Why we should play second fiddle to Cleveland/Minnesota/Detroit (the next team that will leapfrog us) is beyond me.

Either scrap the whole thing and rebuild, or spend some damn money. I would be happy with either, as long as this "spend just enough to hopefully be competitive if Minnesota falters" approach is finally jettisoned.

jabrch
09-29-2004, 12:41 AM
Then SELL! If they don't care, SELL!
Either scrap the whole thing and rebuild, or spend some damn money. I would be happy with either, as long as this "spend just enough to hopefully be competitive if Minnesota falters" approach is finally jettisoned.
ya know what - who are you or I to tell them to do that. This is their business - why should they sell a business that is returning them a fair rate of return on their investment? Just cuz you don't like the results? Vote with your voice.

The only way to make them sell is to make this a losing proposition. Stop going. Stop watching. Stop buying. Stop calling, Stop posting. Stop caring. If you don't - they won't see it.

Now that's not my attitude. I am a fan of the Sox and of the game cuz I enjoy it - win or lose. I dont get my panties all in a bunch every time someone screws up or every time some other team does better than us. Frankly, I don't care so much. I am resigned to the fate that this team will never have a revenue base large enough to compete with the big spending teams so we will need a major miracle (3 CY Young pitchers and 3 all-star hitters to develop in the same 2 calendar years - and all to stay fairly healthy) in order to ever be at that level. So I enjoy the game and the team for what it is worth - a diversion - a hobby. I sure hope to see a WS here someday - but I am not going to bitch and cry about everything all day. It would make me a very bitter little man.

historian
09-29-2004, 02:14 AM
I try not to hate anyone. My negative feelings toward JR began in 94 when he was more that willing to lock out the best team the sox had fielded in more than a decade, maybe ever. It's about 20 plus years of futility, not purse strings. It's also about his sorry assed pet kiss ass the hawkeroo. Recall that this is the idiot who was promoted to general manager and ran Tony Larusa out of town. For that he should be persona non grata at The Cell forever, but he seems to have a lifetime job. No JR, no Hawk? Works for me.

And most of all my animosity is about the PR and marketing blunders that have allowed this town to become Cub Nation.:angry:

As for KW, the jury is still out but a vertic is expected soon. And he ain't sitting pretty.

gosox41
09-29-2004, 08:48 AM
you cant say that colon wouldnt of been different here! just cuz he was that bad in anaheim, doesnt mean that he would of been just as bad here
Why should I think he'd be better here? And can't I say this about every player the Sox let go and every player the Sox sign?

How's this:

If the Sox kept Jeremy Reed he would suck up here. Because he's in Seattle he is going to be decent to good.

If the Sox trade Jon Garland, he's going to win 20 games a season.

If Carl Everett were still in Montreal he would be in shape and healthier and hitting better.


Maybe the numbers would be different, but not drastically so. Especially if you consider the fact that the Cell is turning into a launching pad.


Bob

gosox41
09-29-2004, 08:55 AM
While part of me agrees Lip, another part of me wonders if I'd be willing to put up my money after, say, the Albert Belle fiasco. Just something to think about.

Some of those Lip posts are pure contradiction or not even based on fact:

1. How does he know what JR makes to run the Sox? He may only be taking home a salary of $100K per year. I don't know and neither does Lip.

2. Forbe's list of how much baseball teams make comes as a convenient stat to mention the Sox being profitable. But what is ignored is that fact that 1. this article may not be 100% correct and 2. any profits the Sox have invested the last few seasons have gone back in payroll increases.

The Sox supposedly made $12 mill. last season. Guess how much higher the 2004 payroll went up.

Funny how that never gets mentioned anymore.

3. I haven't read the article lately, but didn't something like 25 teams lose money last season according to Forbes?


4. The 60/40 debt rule. Lip says it's there to hold down salaries. That is part of it. But the rest of the story shows that the rule needs to be enforced because so many teams we're so highly leveraged with debt to pay salaries.

Last I checked "cash cows" or business that produce a lot of cash, don't need to take on much if any debt.



Bob

gosox41
09-29-2004, 09:01 AM
Lip, without knowing or caring what it is that you make, I can almost guarantee that there are those who live quite happily on less. So why shouldn't you live like them and donate the excess to charitable endeavours?

Like it or not, owners for the most part have earned their money, they have no obligation to do anything with it that they don't choose to. If they want to make sure that their great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren are wealthy, that's 100% their right.

Baseball, like many other things is a business. If that business makes an arrangement to get public subsidies, great. They are responsible for whatever they contract to do, nothing more. Baseball has no more responsibility for owners to invest personal $$$ in teams because they have stadiums publicly funded than Boeing's executives & majority shareholders do because they get tax breaks.

You're right on all points. Especially the last point. It's the polticians that agreed to subsidize the stadiums. It's not like JR is hiring people thugs to rob banks of mug people at gun point.

If you want to look at accountability. The fact is the public officials are the one's who should be blamed more for this. Sports owners are hardly the only business to ask for financial aid from the govt. The fact that govts. keep giving it to them is the issue. They don't have to or need to. But as long as they continue to do it, owners are going to continue to ask for money to fund their stadiums.


Bob

gosox41
09-29-2004, 09:06 AM
Then SELL! If they don't care, SELL!

This is Chicago. Why we should play second fiddle to Cleveland/Minnesota/Detroit (the next team that will leapfrog us) is beyond me.

Either scrap the whole thing and rebuild, or spend some damn money. I would be happy with either, as long as this "spend just enough to hopefully be competitive if Minnesota falters" approach is finally jettisoned.
We;ve outspent Minnesota, Cleveland, and Detroit the last 4 years. It hasn't helped.

How's this for a better scenario. KW actually puts togehter a division winning team on a budget that's higher then Minnesota's to begin with. The Sox go to the playoffs in Year 1 and maybe go to the seond round or the Series. Either way, next year's team will have an increase in ticket sales + the team's extra playoff revenue. And JR continues to funnel back the profits the Sox make into payroll so next year's payroll is even higher. And it keeps building from there.

It's one thing to say JR is cheap and should take a little risk and spend a bit more to try to win. But when you continuously lose the division to a team that is spending less then you, the argument about payroll loses validity. But there is a whole argument of why KW is doing so little with a significantly higher payroll then Terry Ryan is.



Bob

Paulwny
09-29-2004, 10:27 AM
3. I haven't read the article lately, but didn't something like 25 teams lose money last season according to Forbes?
Bob

Yep, all these teams lost money last year yet, the value of their businesses still rose. Other then sport franchises no other business increases in value when their bottom line keeps dropping.
All the numbers are guesses, the only ones who know the actual plus or minus of a franchise are the teams hierachy.

Ol' No. 2
09-29-2004, 10:39 AM
Yep, all these teams lost money last year yet, the value of their businesses still rose. Other then sport franchises no other business increases in value when their bottom line keeps dropping.
All the numbers are guesses, the only ones who know the actual plus or minus of a franchise are the teams hierachy.Any shrewd accountant can make Microsoft look like it's losing money. It's easy. You set up parking, concessions and other big moneymakers as separate entities, so none of the profits show up on the baseball team's books. You set up cable broadcast corporations (sound familiar?) and charge them below-market rates to broadcast the games, pushing more of the profits off the team's books. A few more twists of the shell and Presto! all the profits have disappeared. There may be A FEW teams that are in the red on a short-term basis, but not many. Money-losing businesses don't increase in value unless it's a startup business with significant potential for future earnings.

soxfansince58
10-01-2004, 08:33 PM
It is a common threme among JR haters to call him cheap and blame him and KW's refusal to spend for the White Sox woes. I challenge all of them to look at this I found. The Sox have a 20+% higher salary than the Twinkies. If you don't believe me, just take a look. Spending more money won't give us championships so pleae for the love of God, stop the complaining.

http://www.onestopbaseball.com/TeamPayroll.asp
You are correct in your stats. However, of those teams that have a lower payroll than the Sox, 5 have a better record than the Sox. So, JR and KW may not be cheap, but they are not spending the money as wisely as other teams. The dissatisfaction with JR and KW continues.