PDA

View Full Version : Sun-Times: What to expect? More cheapness!


kittle42
10-05-2004, 11:19 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/output/sox/cst-spt-sox05.html

Big surprise.

mweflen
10-05-2004, 11:30 AM
yeah, can't say this is the surprise of the century. same old song and dance...

Kogs35
10-05-2004, 11:35 AM
*Yawn*

Hangar18
10-05-2004, 11:39 AM
What is it that this team (Jerry Reinsdorf) Doesnt Get?

in 2001, he needed #3, #4, #5 PITCHING and used CHEAPER alternatives.
No Playoffs

in 2002, he needed #4, #5 Pitching and some hitting, and used Cheaper Alternatives.
No Playoffs

in 2003, he needed #5 Pitching, LeadOff, CF, Catcher, Mgr, got cheaper alternatives.
No Playoffs

in 2004, he needed #5 Pitching, Leadoff, Catcher, BullPen, Bench, got cheaper alternatives.
No Playoffs.

in 2005, he needs #4, #5 Pitching, Leadoff, Catcher, SS, 3B, Bench, BullPen.
Theyre talking about getting rid of the only good players we have, to fill those
holes .......
ANyone see a Pattern Developing?
No Playoffs in 2005 also

soxfan26
10-05-2004, 11:46 AM
Ozzie says:

''The reason Minnesota is winning is because they play better than us at some point.
That point is about 6 months long, some call it a "season". What a novel idea, you get beat because someone plays better then you do. Who knew? :dunno:

SEALgep
10-05-2004, 11:51 AM
When has KW ever gone into an offseason with the plan on the table for all to see? I'm awaiting judgment. I'm optimistic, but we'll just have to see how it pans out.

Wealz
10-05-2004, 11:51 AM
I don't care what the payroll for next year will be. I want to know what their plan for fielding a world champion team is.

samram
10-05-2004, 11:52 AM
I don't trust Reinsdorf to let KW fill all the holes this offseason, but nothing I read there indicates that there won't be any changes- it seems like speculation by Padilla based on past offseasons. He could be right, but Williams says he would prefer to do something before the winter meetings. The whole article seems like Padilla was forced to write something by his editor, and he just yanked some old quotes and threw it together. I wish the Sun-Times would have a Sox beat writer worth reading.

SEALgep
10-05-2004, 11:55 AM
I don't trust Reinsdorf to let KW fill all the holes this offseason, but nothing I read there indicates that there won't be any changes- it seems like speculation by Padilla based on past offseasons. He could be right, but Williams says he would prefer to do something before the winter meetings. The whole article seems like Padilla was forced to write something by his editor, and he just yanked some old quotes and threw it together. I wish the Sun-Times would have a Sox beat writer worth reading.That was my take as well. KW always has weary of giving information about his offseason plans, as he should. I don't know if we're going to splurge, but we'll certainly be active IMO.

kittle42
10-05-2004, 11:58 AM
Umm....are some of you fans of the same team I am? What exactly makes you optimistic about this organization? Sure, once in a while they go out and fetch Colon, Wells, or Belle - but leave glaring, gaping holes to fill. If they ever did something nutty, like getting Beltran, the same would hold true this year.

Much like Dollar Bill and the 'Hawks, there will be no championships until JR has left our fair South Side.

Hangar18
10-05-2004, 12:03 PM
On the SOX offseason Free Agent Plans -"The belief is that a Good Defense will help their Pitching instead of Lumbering Power Hitters"

Translation- Going after "defensive" players is much CHEAPER.

Didnt we try this theory in 2001? what happened in 2001 season KW & JR,
refresh my memory please

SOXSINCE'70
10-05-2004, 12:04 PM
Umm....are some of you fans of the same team I am? What exactly makes you optimistic about this organization? Sure, once in a while they go out and fetch Colon, Wells, or Belle - but leave glaring, gaping holes to fill. If they ever did something nutty, like getting Beltran, the same would hold true this year.

Much like Dollar Bill and the 'Hawks, there will be no championships until JR has left our fair South Side.
Here we go again.What part of "you have to spend money to earn money"
does Reinsdork not understand??Maybe he wants to be the most hated sports owner in Chicago.Hated more than anyone named Wirtz or
Mc Cheapskate (I mean McCaskey). There's an old saying that applies to this team:"The more things change,the more they remain the same".:(: :(:

Hangar18
10-05-2004, 12:12 PM
"The SOX and their Limited Resources, when compared to other Large-Market teams...."

That says it all doesnt it? Padilla says this tongue-in-cheek, but its excellent. Mike Kiley would NEVER say anything like this now would he?
He goes on to say the SOX will fill their holes with 2nd and 3rd rate players, the type of players that the BIG MARKET teams skip over. We pick these players up, and we Miss the playoffs. Year after Year. Sure, you'll have the Occasional BLIP season, where everything falls into place, but unfortuneately, the SOX WONT MAINTAIN that team, letting the Big $$ guys go, OR not filling holes. Its always one of the two. *sigh*

The only good thing, is Jerry Reinsdorf will be 70 in February! Im gonna throw him a Big Party ..........

soxnut
10-05-2004, 12:14 PM
On the SOX offseason Free Agent Plans -"The belief is that a Good Defense will help their Pitching instead of Lumbering Power Hitters"

Translation- Going after "defensive" players is much CHEAPER.

Didnt we try this theory in 2001? what happened in 2001 season KW & JR,
refresh my memory please

There were alot of injuries to the pitching staff and Frank was out for the entire year. And David Wells pitched like he didn't want to be here anyway.

LVSoxFan
10-05-2004, 12:18 PM
Ozzie says:


That point is about 6 months long, some call it a "season". What a novel idea, you get beat because someone plays better then you do. Who knew? :dunno:
*****. So true! :bandance:

ewokpelts
10-05-2004, 12:23 PM
What is it that this team (Jerry Reinsdorf) Doesnt Get?

in 2001, he needed #3, #4, #5 PITCHING and used CHEAPER alternatives.
No Playoffs

in 2002, he needed #4, #5 Pitching and some hitting, and used Cheaper Alternatives.
No Playoffs

in 2003, he needed #5 Pitching, LeadOff, CF, Catcher, Mgr, got cheaper alternatives.
No Playoffs

in 2004, he needed #5 Pitching, Leadoff, Catcher, BullPen, Bench, got cheaper alternatives.
No Playoffs.

in 2005, he needs #4, #5 Pitching, Leadoff, Catcher, SS, 3B, Bench, BullPen.
Theyre talking about getting rid of the only good players we have, to fill those
holes .......
ANyone see a Pattern Developing?
No Playoffs in 2005 alsohenry, you forgot one thing...ticket are going up ...again
Gene

soxnut
10-05-2004, 12:26 PM
I don't trust Reinsdorf to let KW fill all the holes this offseason, but nothing I read there indicates that there won't be any changes- it seems like speculation by Padilla based on past offseasons. He could be right, but Williams says he would prefer to do something before the winter meetings. The whole article seems like Padilla was forced to write something by his editor, and he just yanked some old quotes and threw it together. I wish the Sun-Times would have a Sox beat writer worth reading.

I think it was a "fill" peice as well. There were no speciif quotes from KW that to me indicated cheapness. And really spending money doesn't guarantee anything.

I'm sure there were alot of you worried that the Cubs were going somewhere after all of the money they spent...and look what happened. Look at the Twins, and where they are every year. So money doesn't always do it.

And I don't want the Sox to spend like the Yankees or the Red sox, I'm not willing to spend that kind of money on tickets the their fans have to pay to go to the games, for just a possibility.
No thanks.

Justafan
10-05-2004, 12:28 PM
This is nothing new and should come as no surprise. It is what it is and it's NEVER going to change. Here is what the off season will look like.

Sox sign Neifi Perez
Sox decide to go with Grilli as 5th starter
Sox decide to go with LTP in right field.

Same shi#, different year.

Justafan
10-05-2004, 12:32 PM
I think it was a "fill" peice as well. There were no speciif quotes from KW that to me indicated cheapness. And really spending money doesn't guarantee anything.

I'm sure there were alot of you worried that the Cubs were going somewhere after all of the money they spent...and look what happened. Look at the Twins, and where they are every year. So money doesn't always do it.

And I don't want the Sox to spend like the Yankees or the Red sox, I'm not willing to spend that kind of money on tickets the their fans have to pay to go to the games, for just a possibility.
No thanks.
Good points. However, the reason the Cubs did not make it was because they were not focused on baseball. The talent was there, not the focus. Payroll indeed does matter, if not, why are the Red Sox and Yankees back in it? Look at Houston as well.

Dick Allen
10-05-2004, 12:41 PM
This is it. They go on the cheap this season, then I go on the cheap. I.E., no purchasing tickets for games, no Soxfest. If some of the self-righteous among you tell me, "we don't want your kind of fan anyway", you can kiss my arse because I've been putting up with it for 45 years. No more.

ewokpelts
10-05-2004, 12:51 PM
This is it. They go on the cheap this season, then I go on the cheap. I.E., no purchasing tickets for games, no Soxfest. If some of the self-righteous among you tell me, "we don't want your kind of fan anyway", you can kiss my arse because I've been putting up with it for 45 years. No more.to each thier own. What you plan to do is better than what I've done the last 5 years...spend lots of money.
Gene

SEALgep
10-05-2004, 12:53 PM
On the SOX offseason Free Agent Plans -"The belief is that a Good Defense will help their Pitching instead of Lumbering Power Hitters"

Translation- Going after "defensive" players is much CHEAPER.

Didnt we try this theory in 2001? what happened in 2001 season KW & JR,
refresh my memory pleaseDo you need a refresher of what's happened the last four years?

Lip Man 1
10-05-2004, 12:57 PM
It's actually funny in a sadistic sort of way don't you think?

Can't wait to hear Bob's defense of this and how he equates raising ticket prices with basically the same off season dung to Uncle Jerry's 'raising the payroll.'

And yes Bob does make valid points with his comments on Ken Williams but the fact of the matter is Williams isn't going anywhere, therefore how do the Sox win anything without spending more money?

Answer: they don't....as shown by their 'exceptional' average record of 83-79 since the White Flag Trade.

Now factor in the potential of next season now without both Ordonez and Thomas (if rumours are true) and you have a disaster in the making.

Lip

SEALgep
10-05-2004, 01:05 PM
It's actually funny in a sadistic sort of way don't you think?

Can't wait to hear Bob's defense of this and how he equates raising ticket prices with basically the same off season dung to Uncle Jerry's 'raising the payroll.'

And yes Bob does make valid points with his comments on Ken Williams but the fact of the matter is Williams isn't going anywhere, therefore how do the Sox win anything without spending more money?

Answer: they don't....as shown by their 'exceptional' average record of 83-79 since the White Flag Trade.

Now factor in the potential of next season now without both Ordonez and Thomas (if rumours are true) and you have a disaster in the making.

LipIsn't it a little premature to predict next season a disaster when the offseason hasn't even officially begun?

DMarte708
10-05-2004, 01:06 PM
Now factor in the potential of next season now without both Ordonez and Thomas (if rumours are true) and you have a disaster in the making.

Lip

A disaster sounds likely. Hopefully Thomas won't be injured so IF the team fails to reach the postseason KW won't have any excuses. I believe this upcoming season is his defining year. No one can convince me FIVE YEARS without a playoff appearance (in the Comedy Cental) defines a GM worth keeping. Playoffs or pink slip. It's that simple.

Win1ForMe
10-05-2004, 01:08 PM
http://www.suntimes.com/output/sox/cst-spt-sox05.html

Big surprise.
Because if Doug Padilla wrote it, it has to be true.

batmanZoSo
10-05-2004, 01:10 PM
http://www.suntimes.com/output/sox/cst-spt-sox05.html

Big surprise.

What is the big deal here? Isn't this what we already knew? All it says is the money-conscious Sox won't "splurge" or be able to "spend freely" in free agency this winter. That doesn't mean they're definitely going to sit on their hands and do nothing. Of course it doesn't mean they WILL do anything, but this article I think is being taken too heavily. With all the millions being freed up from players leaving--despite all the raises around the team--I believe they will do a few things to try to fix what's been bugging us. I sense that KW and Ozzie have been too strong in their sentiments not to do anything and there hasn't been any talk of JR slashing payroll or anything like that.

This article does almost erase all hopes of getting a guy like Beltran, but who here really expected that anyway? We probably won't be getting Pavano either, but another Bartolo Colon syle trade for a good pitcher is a good possibility.

The Sox also would like to make speed and defense a priority with position players they seek this winter. The belief is that a top defense would make the pitching even that much better, and getting guys who can take the extra base or score from first on a double would be more beneficial than lumbering power hitters.

This is good news in my opinion. Speed and defense a priority with players they SEEK. That means any additions will help improve those areas, not that they're going to change the whole team around. This is a move to not only diversify our offensive attack, but to complement the new pitching-oriented philosophy they say they're going for. If you were running a football team and decided to become run-oriented, you'd have to get great blockers and possibly compromise your passing game in the process by letting a wide recevier go. The point is, maximize the area you're leaning towards. They have the right plan so far.

cornball
10-05-2004, 01:14 PM
Excluding the Twins, the teams in the playoffs have a payroll over 85MM. Throw in the Giants and Cubs, who were eliminated the last day of the season, and this still holds true.


The Twins, like the Sox, benefit from being in a lousy division. The Twins have been saved by their farm, which seems to always have players come up and contribute. This only makes it harder to reason, with the division constantly there for the taking.... if we spend smart money. Not a guarentee but increases the possiblity.

Sorry, didn't mean to sing the same tune heard about 10 million times.

Win1ForMe
10-05-2004, 01:16 PM
After carefully reading the article, I'm starting to think Doug Padilla is retarded. Couple of examples...

Padilla: "...the Sox' pitching staff is close to being as complete as they could have ever imagined..."

KW: "If there is an opportunity to get even more solid in the starting rotation, we'll be looking for it, for sure."

Padilla: "...the Sox don't figure to make moves of significance until well after the winter meetings..."

KW: "That won't stop us from having a plan of attack and going out and aggressively trying to do something sooner rather than later. I prefer not to wait until the winter meetings to do anything."

:dunno:

Win1ForMe
10-05-2004, 01:28 PM
FWIW, here are some quotes from Scott Gregor in today's Daily Herald:
http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sox.asp

Owed $8.75 million next season, there has been talk that Konerko is on the trade block. Don't believe it. As popular as he is productive, Konerko is a solid good bet to return.
Ross Gload, who finished the season with a 16-game hitting streak while batting .321 overall, is a very capable backup. Harris said he could "easily'' bat .300 and steal 30-40 bases, but the White Sox are looking for a more proven performer at second base. Starting pitching: Mark Buehrle and Freddy Garcia are set at the top of the rotation, with Jose Contreras and Jon Garland in line to fill the next two spots.
But the latter duo will be pushed down a notch if the White Sox are able to sign a quality free agent this winter. Williams is hoping to add a reliever who can set up and close games, but they are hard to find.

samram
10-05-2004, 01:38 PM
After carefully reading the article, I'm starting to think Doug Padilla is retarded. Couple of examples...

Padilla: "...the Sox' pitching staff is close to being as complete as they could have ever imagined..."

KW: "If there is an opportunity to get even more solid in the starting rotation, we'll be looking for it, for sure."

Padilla: "...the Sox don't figure to make moves of significance until well after the winter meetings..."

KW: "That won't stop us from having a plan of attack and going out and aggressively trying to do something sooner rather than later. I prefer not to wait until the winter meetings to do anything."

:dunno:
Yeah, those quotes seem to be in contradiction with the tone of the article. Odd how so many people here complain about media bias or indifference toward the Sox, but as soon as Doug Padilla throws some garbage together, it's gospel truth. Like I said before, I don't know if the Sox will address their problems by spending a lot of money, but the quotes in the article don't indicate they will just sit on their hands.

batmanZoSo
10-05-2004, 01:44 PM
After carefully reading the article, I'm starting to think Doug Padilla is retarded. Couple of examples...

Padilla: "...the Sox' pitching staff is close to being as complete as they could have ever imagined..."


I don't agree with that. If you add another Garcia type, we essentially have Buehrle, Garcia, Garcia, Contreras, Garland. That's a damn good starting 5 in this day and age. If you then add maybe two good bullpen guys we have a legit pitching staff capable of going all the way.

We're a lot closer to a great pitching staff than we've ever been since 94. Especially the last few years when all we had was Buehrle, Garland and Ritchie at one point.

gosox41
10-05-2004, 01:48 PM
This is it. They go on the cheap this season, then I go on the cheap. I.E., no purchasing tickets for games, no Soxfest. If some of the self-righteous among you tell me, "we don't want your kind of fan anyway", you can kiss my arse because I've been putting up with it for 45 years. No more.
Why not see what the payroll is before you say/do anything?


Bob

Dick Allen
10-05-2004, 02:00 PM
Why not see what the payroll is before you say/do anything?


BobOf course I'm going to wait. But if this article turns out to be reality by next spring, then I'm history.

Hangar18
10-05-2004, 02:08 PM
Why not see what the payroll is before you say/do anything?


Bob
Good Point, i'll follow along on that for a bit. BUT, going on the SOX track record, I think its safe to say theyre GOING CHEAP once again. The only times I remember the SOX spending the $$$$ and Filling Holes was 1982, 1983. Remember what happened those years? PLAYOFFS. (well 83)
They spent some $$$ again, though Reluctantly in 1993 and 1994?
Remember what happened those years? PLAYOFFS. (sort of in 94)

2001- Didnt Spend, No Playoffs
2002- Didnt Spend, No Playoffs
2003- Didnt Spend, Let Key Players Go, No Playoffs
2004- Didnt Spend, Let Key Players Go, No Playoffs
2005- Mgmt Says Wont Spend, per KW, (insert teams destiny here)

ewokpelts
10-05-2004, 02:10 PM
Good Point, i'll follow along on that for a bit. BUT, going on the SOX track record, I think its safe to say theyre GOING CHEAP once again. The only times I remember the SOX spending the $$$$ and Filling Holes was 1982, 1983. Remember what happened those years? PLAYOFFS. (well 83)
They spent some $$$ again, though Reluctantly in 1993 and 1994?
Remember what happened those years? PLAYOFFS. (sort of in 94)

2001- Didnt Spend, No Playoffs
2002- Didnt Spend, No Playoffs
2003- Didnt Spend, Let Key Players Go, No Playoffs
2004- Didnt Spend, Let Key Players Go, No Playoffs
2005- Mgmt Says Wont Spend, per KW, (insert teams destiny here)Henry,
You're wrong. Dont you remember all the great players we got, like Wells, Ritchie, Koch. Colon?
Gene

Hangar18
10-05-2004, 02:16 PM
Yeah, those quotes seem to be in contradiction with the tone of the article. Odd how so many people here complain about media bias or indifference toward the Sox, but as soon as Doug Padilla throws some garbage together, it's gospel truth. Like I said before, I don't know if the Sox will address their problems by spending a lot of money, but the quotes in the article don't indicate they will just sit on their hands.
On the Contrary, PADILLA wrote a GOOD ARTICLE. He was BOLD enough
to write it with an EDGE, quietly ripping on the SOX for what he sees will be the same old thing over and over again. SOX try to put Cheaper Alternatives at key positions, Take Chances with unproven Players, and Let Key guys go.

Im furious because if Enough of the Chicago Media took the SOX to task
for this nonsense, we might see something different on the south side.
Instead, the media was too busy picking WS rotations, writing fluffy stories about Little Punk Darren Bakers lineup choices, where The Messiah likes to eat steak and other junk, all the while allowing the SOX to fly under the Media radar and get away seemingly, with pulling what theyve pulled.
The only people NOT FOOLED are the people in the stands and on this site.

Lazy Media. Book It.

Mohoney
10-05-2004, 02:24 PM
I don't really need a spending spree, just bring everybody back that we already have under contract, and give me Russ Ortiz or Odalis Perez.

We score enough runs to compete. We just don't have pitching capable enough to win those 3-2 or 2-1 games.

What was our record in games when we scored 3 runs this year? Has our pitching stepped up and bailed our offense out on subpar nights? It seems to me that it was always the other way around.

Every offense is going to have off nights. Sometimes you have to win pitchers duels, and we only have two pitchers capable of doing that (Garcia and Buehrle). If we bump that up to three, and go into 2005 with 5 starters that can give us 200 innings and post records over .500, we can probably win this division.

kittle42
10-05-2004, 02:49 PM
Isn't it a little premature to predict next season a disaster when the offseason hasn't even officially begun?
Nope.

Lip Man 1
10-05-2004, 03:39 PM
Last 'off season' was a prime example of why kittle 42 made his perfect reply.

Lip

SEALgep
10-05-2004, 03:41 PM
Last 'off season' was a prime example of why kittle 42 made his perfect reply.

LipYour ignoring the fact that last season had more contract restrictions and a different FA market.

Hangar18
10-05-2004, 05:47 PM
Your ignoring the fact that last season had more contract restrictions and a different FA market.
Your also Ignoring the Fact that the SOX now have even MORE HOLES to fill NOW than last season, in their lineup, and another YEAR WASTED in their quest for a "championship".
Now, we need even more bullpen help (a closer type Keith Foulke-wait, didnt we have him?), a RF (power hitting 30 Homer/RBI Magglio Ordonez type-wait, didnt we have him?) a SS with SPEED who can bunt and gets on base, a 2b with SPEED who can bunt and get on base (a Ray Durham type-wait, didnt we have him?) a #1 starter who can Eat Innings (a Bartolo Colon type-wait, didnt we have him?) an 8th Inning/special situation type Pitcher (a Flash Gordon type-wait, didnt we have him?
a #5 Starter (Havnt filled this since 2000 season) , a couple of multi-faceted hardnosed players off the bench would be great too (a Tony Graffanino type-wait, didnt we have him?)

Hangar18
10-05-2004, 05:59 PM
Your also Ignoring the Fact that the SOX now have even MORE HOLES to fill NOW than last season, in their lineup, and another YEAR WASTED in their quest for a "championship".
Now, we need even more bullpen help (a closer type Keith Foulke-wait, didnt we have him?), a RF (power hitting 30 Homer/RBI Magglio Ordonez type-wait, didnt we have him?) a SS with SPEED who can bunt and gets on base, a 2b with SPEED who can bunt and get on base (a Ray Durham type-wait, didnt we have him?) a #1 starter who can Eat Innings (a Bartolo Colon type-wait, didnt we have him?) an 8th Inning/special situation type Pitcher (a Flash Gordon type-wait, didnt we have him?
a #5 Starter, a couple of multi-faceted hardnosed players off the bench would be great too (a Tony Graffanino type-wait, didnt we have him?)
Lets take a look now...at how the SOX filled their Self-Inflicted Holes shall we?
X= No longer with team
Y= No longer in baseball
THEN Replaced With
RF Maggs Ordonez RF Carl Everett/Ross Gload
P Keith Foulke P Billy Koch x
2b Ray Durham 2b D'Angelo Jimenez x
SS Jose Valentin SS Jose Valentin
P Flash Gordon P Mike Jackson x y
P Scott Sullivan P Cliff Politte
P Bartolo Colon P Nobody

In nearly every situation, the player was replaced by someone A: Cheaper
B: No experience/Over-the-hill

Is it any wonder Why We havnt been to the Playoffs since 2000? And before that since 1993?

LVSoxFan
10-05-2004, 06:05 PM
Gordon; I forgot about that. When they came back this season without him, I remember thinking: ***?

The media--save for Mariotti--don't target the Sox because this town isn't invested in them the way they are the Cubs. I'm glad that some people will throw some bombs if it gets results.

My favorite story--and why I'm proud to be a Sox fan--is at the meetings last year where apparently people started peppering KW with tough questions and he got all bent out of shape. What was one of the comments? "Now that 2004's over, can we talk about 2005?"

LMAO! I tell my Cub fan friends this to point out that we do no accept lovable loser mediocrity and fill seats no matter what because we love our team even when they suck. Having been at the final home game, it was obvious people weren't going to invest any more this summer in that doomed team.

So I wouldn't wait for the media to come around, it's pretty much up to the rabble rousers here and at the meeting to start putting the tough questions out--although granted, as long as JR is the owner, it's all kinda futile isn't it?

Why can't we have an owner like Anaheim! Look what that guy did, and fast!

kittle42
10-05-2004, 06:13 PM
Your ignoring the fact that last season had more contract restrictions and a different FA market.
:reinsy
"Confession....I am SEALgep."

SEALgep
10-05-2004, 07:42 PM
Lets take a look now...at how the SOX filled their Self-Inflicted Holes shall we?
X= No longer with team
Y= No longer in baseball
THEN Replaced With
RF Maggs Ordonez RF Carl Everett/Ross Gload
P Keith Foulke P Billy Koch x
2b Ray Durham 2b D'Angelo Jimenez x
SS Jose Valentin SS Jose Valentin
P Flash Gordon P Mike Jackson x y
P Scott Sullivan P Cliff Politte
P Bartolo Colon P Nobody

In nearly every situation, the player was replaced by someone A: Cheaper
B: No experience/Over-the-hill

Is it any wonder Why We havnt been to the Playoffs since 2000? And before that since 1993?Again, different payroll restriction as well as different FA market. Say what you will, in fact please do, what exactly would you have done with the payroll KW had to work with and with the FA that were on the market?

SEALgep
10-05-2004, 07:44 PM
:reinsy
"Confession....I am SEALgep."It's real easy to whine and moan about everything, isn't it?

Lip Man 1
10-05-2004, 07:58 PM
Seal:

It's about about results in sports, it's all about winning. What have the Sox won in the last 24 years alone?

Thus endeth the lesson.

Lip

kittle42
10-05-2004, 10:35 PM
It's real easy to whine and moan about everything, isn't it?
It sure is, Uncle Jer.

PavanoBeltran'05
10-05-2004, 10:52 PM
It sure is, Uncle Jer.I like your sig. I just dont get it'. Cubs' fan's aren't all morons, are they?

I mean, were all educated people he're, are'nt we?

Flight #24
10-05-2004, 10:54 PM
Last 'off season' was a prime example of why kittle 42 made his perfect reply.

Lip
If you ignore the fact that absent 2 relatively unlikely/fluky injuries to the top 2 players, the team was well positioned to win quite a bit, sure.

SEALgep
10-05-2004, 10:57 PM
Seal:

It's about about results in sports, it's all about winning. What have the Sox won in the last 24 years alone?

Thus endeth the lesson.

LipLesson? What exactly are you teaching? The last 24 years doesn't dictate the situation for last year's offseason.

OEO Magglio
10-05-2004, 11:16 PM
I'm with seal on this. We're already going to bitch and moan about the offseason before the offseason starts?? Come on now, I know I'm more optimistic then most but I really feel we have the makings of a great pitching staff, I'm not going to say we're going to be great next year because I don't even know what the team is going to look like and either do you guys, so how about not complaining until the offseason is over with, huh?

Flight #24
10-05-2004, 11:29 PM
I'm with seal on this. We're already going to bitch and moan about the offseason before the offseason starts?? Come on now, I know I'm more optimistic then most but I really feel we have the makings of a great pitching staff, I'm not going to say we're going to be great next year because I don't even know what the team is going to look like and either do you guys, so how about not complaining until the offseason is over with, huh?
Not to mention that historically, when revenues go up (i.e. attendance), payroll does as well. Guess what - the Comcast deal supposedly is good from a financial standpoint for the Sox......

Combine that with numerous KW quotes talking about FA pitchers, his not being happy with adding a bottom of the rotation guy, and the numerous rumors on Beltran and I think there's a ton of reason for optimism. Well, at least ifthe rumors on Frank are NOT true, anyway....that would put a huge damper on things, even if they do replace him with a very good player.

kittle42
10-06-2004, 12:45 AM
Not to mention that historically, when revenues go up (i.e. attendance), payroll does as well. Guess what - the Comcast deal supposedly is good from a financial standpoint for the Sox......

Combine that with numerous KW quotes talking about FA pitchers, his not being happy with adding a bottom of the rotation guy, and the numerous rumors on Beltran and I think there's a ton of reason for optimism. Well, at least ifthe rumors on Frank are NOT true, anyway....that would put a huge damper on things, even if they do replace him with a very good player.
Every person except Lip and Hangar is delusional. I am going to make note of this thread and wait for everyone to eat crow when JR does next to nothing.

ewokpelts
10-06-2004, 01:19 AM
Your also Ignoring the Fact that the SOX now have even MORE HOLES to fill NOW than last season, in their lineup, and another YEAR WASTED in their quest for a "championship".
Now, we need even more bullpen help (a closer type Keith Foulke-wait, didnt we have him?), a RF (power hitting 30 Homer/RBI Magglio Ordonez type-wait, didnt we have him?) a SS with SPEED who can bunt and gets on base, a 2b with SPEED who can bunt and get on base (a Ray Durham type-wait, didnt we have him?) a #1 starter who can Eat Innings (a Bartolo Colon type-wait, didnt we have him?) an 8th Inning/special situation type Pitcher (a Flash Gordon type-wait, didnt we have him?
a #5 Starter (Havnt filled this since 2000 season) , a couple of multi-faceted hardnosed players off the bench would be great too (a Tony Graffanino type-wait, didnt we have him?)to all of hangar's questions...sadly...YUP...we had them all.
Gene

ewokpelts
10-06-2004, 01:22 AM
Every person except Lip and Hangar is delusional. I am going to make note of this thread and wait for everyone to eat crow when JR does next to nothing.Count me with Lip and mr tin foil hat himself. I think this team will little or no "real" upgrading of the staff.
Gene

Win1ForMe
10-06-2004, 09:40 AM
Every person except Lip and Hangar is delusional. I am going to make note of this thread and wait for everyone to eat crow when JR does next to nothing.Wow, the 3 of you could really use some of this:

:prozac

kittle42
10-06-2004, 11:07 AM
Wow, the 3 of you could really use some of this:

:prozac
I'd rather be a realist on prozac than a fool on Kool-Aid.

Flight #24
10-06-2004, 11:15 AM
Your also Ignoring the Fact that the SOX now have even MORE HOLES to fill NOW than last season, in their lineup, and another YEAR WASTED in their quest for a "championship".
Now, we need even more bullpen help (a closer type Keith Foulke-wait, didnt we have him?), a RF (power hitting 30 Homer/RBI Magglio Ordonez type-wait, didnt we have him?) a SS with SPEED who can bunt and gets on base, a 2b with SPEED who can bunt and get on base (a Ray Durham type-wait, didnt we have him?) a #1 starter who can Eat Innings (a Bartolo Colon type-wait, didnt we have him?) an 8th Inning/special situation type Pitcher (a Flash Gordon type-wait, didnt we have him?
a #5 Starter (Havnt filled this since 2000 season) , a couple of multi-faceted hardnosed players off the bench would be great too (a Tony Graffanino type-wait, didnt we have him?)
Well, yeah - as long as you ignore the fact that the "2B with speed" has been pretty mediocre the past 2-3 years, the "power hitting RF" may never play again (and may still be back), and the "multi-faceted, hardnosed type off the bench" didn't leave for $$$ but for a realistic shot at starting, then you're right on there.....

Win1ForMe
10-06-2004, 11:23 AM
I'd rather be a realist on prozac than a fool on Kool-Aid.
A realist on Doug Padilla's gospel isn't really a realist.

batmanZoSo
10-06-2004, 11:29 AM
It's real easy to whine and moan about everything, isn't it?

Fun, too.
:cool:

kittle42
10-06-2004, 12:51 PM
A realist on Doug Padilla's gospel isn't really a realist.
I am not relying on his column as gospel. As Lip said, I am relying on the past 24 years. Some here do not seem to understand that. It's not really what a columnist says JR will do - it's just that the odds of JR breaking his eternal habit are very, very bad.

Lip Man 1
10-06-2004, 12:52 PM
Seal:

My comment wasn't linked directly to the previous one regarding kittle's comment. To you I stated that when you have 24 years of history staring you in the face and that history says the Sox have NOT won, and the Sox have NOT spent big money, it's foolish to suddenly think that they are.

Thus endeth another lesson.

Lip

SEALgep
10-06-2004, 07:05 PM
Seal:

My comment wasn't linked directly to the previous one regarding kittle's comment. To you I stated that when you have 24 years of history staring you in the face and that history says the Sox have NOT won, and the Sox have NOT spent big money, it's foolish to suddenly think that they are.

Thus endeth another lesson.

LipWasn't the Belle signing within the last 24 years? School's out. As far as not winning, that's why we're revamping the team.

Win1ForMe
10-06-2004, 08:21 PM
I am not relying on his column as gospel. As Lip said, I am relying on the past 24 years. Some here do not seem to understand that. It's not really what a columnist says JR will do - it's just that the odds of JR breaking his eternal habit are very, very bad.
The past does not dictate the future. You're going to need better evidence than that.

kittle42
10-06-2004, 09:34 PM
The past does not dictate the future. You're going to need better evidence than that.
So Reinsy is just suddently going to turn his attitude 180 degrees?

:reinsy
"Not unless I hit my head and get amnesia, kittle. I LOVE this optimism, though."

kittle42
10-06-2004, 09:36 PM
Wasn't the Belle signing within the last 24 years? School's out. As far as not winning, that's why we're revamping the team.
That team had holes a mile wide.

Lip Man 1
10-06-2004, 10:40 PM
From Ron Rapoport's interview with WSI:

"The Sox have decided to try to do it their way and not spend a lot of money. Itís very hard for me to spend someone elseís money. However, the Sox also have to live with the consequences of their decisions, the fans are displeased, and this is a two team market."

Lip

Lip Man 1
10-06-2004, 10:44 PM
Seal:

Sure Uncle Jerry signed Belle, not to improve the team but to take his revenge on the other owners for ending the labor impasse. (That's not my opinion by the way that has come from numerous printer reports in books and newspapers).

The proof of Uncle Jerry's motives was in the pudding. SEVEN MONTHS after signing Belle was the White Flag deal. And least ye forget is it coincidence that Uncle Jerry had that out clause in Belle's deal?

Me thinks not. The Belle signing was (no pun intended) lip service by Uncle Jerry to show he was trying to win. The reality was he had no intention of keeping that team together for very long and being forced to pay those salaries.

Lip

SEALgep
10-07-2004, 08:18 AM
That team had holes a mile wide.He spent the money though, so there is a contradiction in your complaining. Is it he isn't spending the money, or not spending efficiently. Those are seperate complaints, which probably have different answers over a 24 year period.

SEALgep
10-07-2004, 08:21 AM
Seal:

Sure Uncle Jerry signed Belle, not to improve the team but to take his revenge on the other owners for ending the labor impasse. (That's not my opinion by the way that has come from numerous printer reports in books and newspapers).

The proof of Uncle Jerry's motives was in the pudding. SEVEN MONTHS after signing Belle was the White Flag deal. And least ye forget is it coincidence that Uncle Jerry had that out clause in Belle's deal?

Me thinks not. The Belle signing was (no pun intended) lip service by Uncle Jerry to show he was trying to win. The reality was he had no intention of keeping that team together for very long and being forced to pay those salaries.

LipBut he did sign him. Whether or not Belle was part of the future plans, it still directly conflicts with your argument, or should I say your lesson.
Besides, Florida did that one year and won a Championship.

gosox41
10-07-2004, 09:55 AM
He spent the money though, so there is a contradiction in your complaining. Is it he isn't spending the money, or not spending efficiently. Those are seperate complaints, which probably have different answers over a 24 year period.
People here don't get or don't understand that concept. The fact that the Sox outspent Minnesota the last 3 seasons only to fall behind them 3 years in a row shows that.

It's a simple equation: Money=Wins

It's not that simple.


Bob

gosox41
10-07-2004, 09:56 AM
Seal:

Sure Uncle Jerry signed Belle, not to improve the team but to take his revenge on the other owners for ending the labor impasse. (That's not my opinion by the way that has come from numerous printer reports in books and newspapers).

The proof of Uncle Jerry's motives was in the pudding. SEVEN MONTHS after signing Belle was the White Flag deal. And least ye forget is it coincidence that Uncle Jerry had that out clause in Belle's deal?

Me thinks not. The Belle signing was (no pun intended) lip service by Uncle Jerry to show he was trying to win. The reality was he had no intention of keeping that team together for very long and being forced to pay those salaries.

Lip
He still spent the money you say he never spends. Again, you're crossing the line of confusion between spending money and spending money smartly.


Bob

A.T. Money
10-07-2004, 10:18 AM
This is the reason I am not renewing my season tickets this year. I'm not going to keep paying all that money and get nothing in return. I'll still go to my few games next year, but there is no reason that prices should be raised, and then they aren't going to spend more money.

The Sox drew pretty well last year, and Uncle Jer isn't spending.

I'd rather save my money for something useful than that piece of crap.

Hangar18
10-07-2004, 12:46 PM
Wasn't the Belle signing within the last 24 years? School's out. As far as not winning, that's why we're revamping the team.
When word "leaked" out that the SOX were interested in signing Albert Belle,
and the contract would be record breaking, I was shooting pool at a bar,
and needless to say ....... I WAS SHOCKED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I immediately went to the TV and ESPN was displaying the info they had
on their little Ticker. I was GIDDY and still PESSIMISTIC. After all, Uncle Jerry had decided to go Cheap and hadnt spent any real money since they first bought the team. There were about 3 other SOX FANS, all of us looking up at the TV Ticker, ALL OF US EQUALLY SKEPTICAL and COMPLETELY EXCITED.
WHY? We somehow thought that JERRY had a change of heart, and would do what was Necessary to WIN. A SOX FAN knowing his owner is going to spend definitely makes one excited. Never met any of these guys, and our reactions were the same. WE HAD THE BIGGEST SMILES on our faces and one could tell, We were hard-core WHITE SOX FANS. But the one thing we kept saying...................Signing Belle is sure nice, BUT WE NEEDED A PITCHER THAT YEAR, not another hitter.

After a couple of years, we found out the REAL REASON JERRY SIGNED ALBERT, and IT WASNT BECAUSE HE WANTED TO WIN. He was getting
back at the backstabbing owners who were with him when they Colluded to
NOT sign any big contracts. That didnt work did it? Certain teams are
still doing it. Jerry was pissed :angry: What better way to tell
the other owners to Jam It then by signing Belle.

To the fans, he now tells us "see, I signed a big contract, it didnt work out" which is BS, because now that Theory has more bugs in it than the Chinese Embassy. Jerry doesnt want to win. Hed rather just "get by"

Lip Man 1
10-07-2004, 12:52 PM
Seal says: "Besides, Florida did that one year and won a Championship."

That's right....unlike the Sox they didn't pull the plug on the season on July 31st did they? and who authorized that move Seal?

also just for the record, they spent 80 million dollars in salary during the off season of 86 acquiring multiple top players.

Big difference between the two organizations.

Lip

gosox41
10-07-2004, 01:01 PM
Seal says: "Besides, Florida did that one year and won a Championship."

That's right....unlike the Sox they didn't pull the plug on the season on July 31st did they? and who authorized that move Seal?

also just for the record, they spent 80 million dollars in salary during the off season of 86 acquiring multiple top players.

Big difference between the two organizations.

Lip
And then immediately went on the cheap and broke up the team as fast as they could.

If JR won a Series, would you go to a lot of games the following season if he broke up that team that offseason? Let's be honest here.


Bob

kittle42
10-07-2004, 02:00 PM
And then immediately went on the cheap and broke up the team as fast as they could.

If JR won a Series, would you go to a lot of games the following season if he broke up that team that offseason? Let's be honest here.


Bob
Much like the Bulls after they broke up, yes - for a year or so.

gosox41
10-07-2004, 03:04 PM
Much like the Bulls after they broke up, yes - for a year or so.
But if the Sox won the Series and broke up the team and rebuilt completely it would take more then one year to make them contenders again.

And the Bulls still rank the top 3 in attendance after completely sucking for years and having high ticket prices.



Bob

kittle42
10-07-2004, 03:15 PM
But if the Sox won the Series and broke up the team and rebuilt completely it would take more then one year to make them contenders again.
They're not really contenders right now. You wouldn't take one world series for, say, 3-5 years of absolute suckiness? I would. In a heartbeat.

Flight #24
10-07-2004, 03:44 PM
They're not really contenders right now. You wouldn't take one world series for, say, 3-5 years of absolute suckiness? I would. In a heartbeat.
IMO, in the "down" year, you'd have a ton of complaining about how "Jerry has his title, now he wants us to pay for crap" or "Way to maintain a championship team JR". And I'm almost certain that you'd have a ton of "I'm not spending money for this crap" and "I'm not putting a cent into JR's pocket while he's cutting back".

Bulls fans are a lot more loyal than Sox fans. The Bulls also have the luxury of having had the greatest player of all time, which still helps sell tickets.

kittle42
10-07-2004, 04:30 PM
IMO, in the "down" year, you'd have a ton of complaining about how "Jerry has his title, now he wants us to pay for crap" or "Way to maintain a championship team JR". And I'm almost certain that you'd have a ton of "I'm not spending money for this crap" and "I'm not putting a cent into JR's pocket while he's cutting back".
So? Many of us do that right now with no WS. I see how that makes no incentive for JR to get one, but for us, how can we say we wouldn't still be happier overall with a crappy team after a WS title instead of a crappy team with no title?

Hitmen77
10-07-2004, 04:44 PM
Does anyone know what the Sox are planning to set as their payroll limit? How does this compare to other teams? I know the Evil Empire (Yankees) are close to $200mil and the Evil Empire 2 (Cubs) are around $100mil. But, how do the Sox compare to the rest of the league? Somewhat higher than the Brewers but somewhat less than, say, the Cardinals I presume?

I think the Sox problem is two-fold. The unwillingness (or inability) to spend more is only part of the problem. When you add that to the inability of the organization to produce good ballplayers from the farm system - that's where we end up with season after season of finishing at .500. If they could only develop a decent farm system, then that would help offset their limitations on getting free agents.

Flight #24
10-07-2004, 04:49 PM
Does anyone know what the Sox are planning to set as their payroll limit? How does this compare to other teams? I know the Evil Empire (Yankees) are close to $200mil and the Evil Empire 2 (Cubs) are around $100mil. But, how do the Sox compare to the rest of the league? Somewhat higher than the Brewers but somewhat less than, say, the Cardinals I presume?

I think the Sox problem is two-fold. The unwillingness (or inability) to spend more is only part of the problem. When you add that to the inability of the organization to produce good ballplayers from the farm system - that's where we end up with season after season of finishing at .500. If they could only develop a decent farm system, then that would help offset their limitations on getting free agents.
Per ESPN, Sox ranked 15th in MLB with a payroll of $68mil. That # totals the contract value for players ont he current roster, so I'd guess it's not far off of the real # since while we got cash for Everett/Contreras, we paid a bunch for Koch to go away and sent cash to 'Zona for Robbie.

Houston was at $74mil, ST Louis at $81mil. The STL # is probably inflated since they received $$$ in the Walker deal that I don't believe is reflected.

jabrch
10-07-2004, 04:54 PM
JR is cheap. KW is dumb....

Just checking to make sure nothing changed since yesterday.

Flight #24
10-07-2004, 04:57 PM
So? Many of us do that right now with no WS. I see how that makes no incentive for JR to get one, but for us, how can we say we wouldn't still be happier overall with a crappy team after a WS title instead of a crappy team with no title?
That's exactly my point - fans here have short memories, but hold long grudges. In that scenario, they'd give no slack for winning, but complain about the reduction. Or if they spent $100mil and didn't win, it would be the same old story. This season itself is a case study in minature for that. They raised payroll from last year, added to it during the season, and had a very strong team. However, they were killed by 2 relatively freak injuries to their top 2 players. They also had a deal in place to acquire a bigname at the deadline and take on a big salary, but were rejected (by the player - Delgado).

The result - a nosedive in attendance down the stretch. I haven't seen any "Well, Sox management and ownership made the commitment, put the team together, TRIED to keep it going, and were willing to spend more $$$. So I'm going to go to the games and support the team." JR knows he won't get any slack if things go wrong, so he doesn't take the risk. We may not like it, but at the very least, it's an understandable point of view.

kittle42
10-07-2004, 05:04 PM
JR knows he won't get any slack if things go wrong, so he doesn't take the risk. We may not like it, but at the very least, it's an understandable point of view.
Technically, I understand the business viewpoint that JR almost certainly has that his bottom line is to make money.

As a fan, it frustrates the living hell out of me.

Flight #24
10-07-2004, 05:10 PM
Technically, I understand the business viewpoint that JR almost certainly has that his bottom line is to make money.

As a fan, it frustrates the living hell out of me.
You're not the only one!! Personally, I'd like nothing more than to be told "OK, we can go up to a $90mil payroll, but you get that $$ for 3 years and by then if we're not at break even or better, we're cutting WAY back".

But I guarantee that even with that payroll, if they didn't win there would be complaints about how cheap the Sox are.

Lip Man 1
10-07-2004, 09:31 PM
I hope PHG doesn't mind me making a copy of this insightful comment from another thread and placing it here. I think it also applies to this thread:

'You guys are dangerously close to spinning out of orbit and heading for deep space with all these false assumptions about ballpark pricing.

So for all our college students (or those playing one on the internet) here is what every Economics 101 class teaches you:

Market Price is set where marginal incremental cost EQUALS marginal incremental revenue.

You pay $5.50 for a beer at the ballpark. That's the market price at the ballpark. You would be a complete boob to pay $5.50 at Osco. The market price is $4.99 for a whole six-pack.

They charge you $5.50 in the ballpark not because of cost. They charge you $5.50 because they know you're a captive audience for 3 hours and you're thirsty. If they charged you $100 per beer, they would make less money because they wouldn't sell enough to make up the marginal revenue. If they charged you $0.10 per beer, they would make less money because the cost of serving it would exceed the marginal revenue. (There would also be a riot from drunken over-indulgence, but that's another story.)
:wink:

Owners discovered years ago they could keep raising prices simply by claiming they need the money to pay for better ballplayers. They shift the demand curve to the right by signing players like Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson and make even more money as the marginal revenue they make on everything (from tickets to beer, and TV/radio deals to sponsorship opportunities) goes up. Championships result -- even for 4 year-old franchises.

Guys like Reinsdorf are a different sort. He raises prices whether he signs anyone or not, and blames whatever shortcomings the team has on his fans for not spending more. He has no understanding of either economic or business principles. Nor do his apologists. And that's why Reinsdorf and his apologists are all losers.

Now please stop with the mindless speculation. You're embarrassing yourselves."
__________________


Lip

Lip Man 1
10-07-2004, 09:38 PM
Flight:

Remember reading this in a 'what if' story?

In return for increasing dramatically the on field talent, in return for increasing the security of the ballpark, in return for increasing for visibility of this franchise and in return for making an all out effort to win a championship, we are expecting to average between 2.3 and 2.6 million fans per season for the next five years. If this request is met, Iíll call another press conference in the Spring of 2007 and regardless of whether or not weíve won a title, renew our pledge to our fans to continue this agreement for another period of time.
If however, and I want to make this very clear, we do not average between 2.3 and 2.6 million fans for the next five years, on the day after the World Series ends in 2006, I will formally announce to the city, and the baseball commissioner that I am requesting either contraction of the Chicago White Sox or selling to team to out of city buyers with the stipulation that whoever purchases the team will move it.

The time for posturing is over. We will no longer allow egoís, infighting or personal vendettas to affect the operation of the Chicago White Sox. I and the organization pledge to you a sincere, honest and complete effort to win on the field and in the stands."

Let's see Uncle Jerry first dramatically raise the payroll before assuming many people would complain.

Lip

Flight #24
10-07-2004, 10:24 PM
Flight:

Remember reading this in a 'what if' story?

In return for increasing dramatically the on field talent, in return for increasing the security of the ballpark, in return for increasing for visibility of this franchise and in return for making an all out effort to win a championship, we are expecting to average between 2.3 and 2.6 million fans per season for the next five years. If this request is met, Iíll call another press conference in the Spring of 2007 and regardless of whether or not weíve won a title, renew our pledge to our fans to continue this agreement for another period of time.
If however, and I want to make this very clear, we do not average between 2.3 and 2.6 million fans for the next five years, on the day after the World Series ends in 2006, I will formally announce to the city, and the baseball commissioner that I am requesting either contraction of the Chicago White Sox or selling to team to out of city buyers with the stipulation that whoever purchases the team will move it.

The time for posturing is over. We will no longer allow egoís, infighting or personal vendettas to affect the operation of the Chicago White Sox. I and the organization pledge to you a sincere, honest and complete effort to win on the field and in the stands."

Let's see Uncle Jerry first dramatically raise the payroll before assuming many people would complain.

Lip
Actually, no. Where's that from?

Lip Man 1
10-07-2004, 10:50 PM
Flight:

Enjoy.

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

Written in early 2002.

Lip

Flight #24
10-07-2004, 11:10 PM
Flight:

Enjoy.

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

Written in early 2002.

Lip
Great story Lip. Apparently, while it may seem odd, we have some similar thought processes.

My question to you is: If the Sox did spend like that, and didn't win, you think the attendance would be there? I personally do not.

Lip Man 1
10-08-2004, 01:25 PM
Thank you...and yes I do. If the Sox were to have three straight years of say 93-95 wins with the Wild Card, they'd be almost assured of getting into the post season.

Consistently win 92+ games and they'd draw over 2.5 million every season in my opinion, because to Sox fans 'winning' is a relative term. There are many Sox fans now alive who have never experienced this club say having ten straight winning seasons.

They'd come out...in droves, especially with the organization finally captulating and redesigning their sterile stadium (not that they did it with their own money of course!)

Lip

Flight #24
10-08-2004, 01:47 PM
Thank you...and yes I do. If the Sox were to have three straight years of say 93-95 wins with the Wild Card, they'd be almost assured of getting into the post season.

Consistently win 92+ games and they'd draw over 2.5 million every season in my opinion, because to Sox fans 'winning' is a relative term. There are many Sox fans now alive who have never experienced this club say having ten straight winning seasons.

They'd come out...in droves, especially with the organization finally captulating and redesigning their sterile stadium (not that they did it with their own money of course!)

Lip
I agree with you that winning over a couple of years would draw. But I also think that as soon as they have a down year, attendance will plummet. I just dont' have the degree of faith that you do.

gosox41
10-08-2004, 02:26 PM
I hope PHG doesn't mind me making a copy of this insightful comment from another thread and placing it here. I think it also applies to this thread:

'You guys are dangerously close to spinning out of orbit and heading for deep space with all these false assumptions about ballpark pricing.

So for all our college students (or those playing one on the internet) here is what every Economics 101 class teaches you:

Market Price is set where marginal incremental cost EQUALS marginal incremental revenue.

You pay $5.50 for a beer at the ballpark. That's the market price at the ballpark. You would be a complete boob to pay $5.50 at Osco. The market price is $4.99 for a whole six-pack.

They charge you $5.50 in the ballpark not because of cost. They charge you $5.50 because they know you're a captive audience for 3 hours and you're thirsty. If they charged you $100 per beer, they would make less money because they wouldn't sell enough to make up the marginal revenue. If they charged you $0.10 per beer, they would make less money because the cost of serving it would exceed the marginal revenue. (There would also be a riot from drunken over-indulgence, but that's another story.)
:wink:

Owners discovered years ago they could keep raising prices simply by claiming they need the money to pay for better ballplayers. They shift the demand curve to the right by signing players like Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson and make even more money as the marginal revenue they make on everything (from tickets to beer, and TV/radio deals to sponsorship opportunities) goes up. Championships result -- even for 4 year-old franchises.

Guys like Reinsdorf are a different sort. He raises prices whether he signs anyone or not, and blames whatever shortcomings the team has on his fans for not spending more. He has no understanding of either economic or business principles. Nor do his apologists. And that's why Reinsdorf and his apologists are all losers.

Now please stop with the mindless speculation. You're embarrassing yourselves."
__________________


Lip
Nothing like discussing economics with a journalist.

But if you look at years when JR has raised ticket prices, payroll has gone up.

Look it up. He may not be singing any big name free agents and may allocate the money in the wrong areas but money spend has gone up.



Bob

gosox41
10-08-2004, 02:27 PM
I agree with you that winning over a couple of years would draw. But I also think that as soon as they have a down year, attendance will plummet. I just dont' have the degree of faith that you do.
I agree. Lip wrote this comment and he doesn't even go to games right now. Will he be coming out in droves?


Bob

Lip Man 1
10-08-2004, 06:26 PM
Bob asks: "We he be coming out in droves?"

Only if they move the Sox to Idaho Falls. Unlike you I don't have the money to fly 2,000 miles every other week. But win consistently and every Sox fan within a hundred miles would be coming out...again and again and again.

By the way what'd you think of PHG's comments Boberino?

Lip

Lip Man 1
10-08-2004, 06:30 PM
Flight says: "But I also think that as soon as they have a down year, attendance will plummet."

So am I assuming correctly Flight that your answer is the status quo? You don't think Uncle Jerry should take any financial risks because it's 'the fans fault?' and unless the fans somehow guarantee (insert number here) attendence per year then ownership shouldn't do anything?

I'd be very curious then to see your solution to break this cycle of mediocrity

Lip

MRKARNO
10-08-2004, 06:49 PM
:tomatoaward

I love how front office discussions win this a lot more than player evaluation (and I dont mean KW vs BB arguements) and performance arguements.

SEALgep
10-08-2004, 07:39 PM
This thread is getting old. The offseason hasn't started, and the article has no factual evidence supporting it's claim that the Sox will not be active. Say what you want Lip, but complaining about stuff before it actually happens is boring.

kittle42
10-08-2004, 08:55 PM
This thread is getting old. The offseason hasn't started, and the article has no factual evidence supporting it's claim that the Sox will not be active. Say what you want Lip, but complaining about stuff before it actually happens is boring.
Then can we just wait a few months and say "We told you so?"

OEO Magglio
10-08-2004, 09:00 PM
Then can we just wait a few months and say "We told you so?"
You do that kittle. I don't understand what the point is to get all pissed off about the offseason before it even takes place, just pointless, imo.

SEALgep
10-09-2004, 12:21 AM
Then can we just wait a few months and say "We told you so?"Just like the Rowand scenerio? Bitterness is a recipe for depression.

gosox41
10-09-2004, 09:11 AM
Bob asks: "We he be coming out in droves?"

Only if they move the Sox to Idaho Falls. Unlike you I don't have the money to fly 2,000 miles every other week. But win consistently and every Sox fan within a hundred miles would be coming out...again and again and again.

By the way what'd you think of PHG's comments Boberino?

Lip
Liperino,

I went back a couple of page in this thread and didn't see them. Was he singling me out? If so, I feel honored. I wish I would have caught it the first time around.


Bob

Lip Man 1
10-09-2004, 01:08 PM
Always ready to help Bob:

Guys like Reinsdorf are a different sort. He raises prices whether he signs anyone or not, and blames whatever shortcomings the team has on his fans for not spending more. He has no understanding of either economic or business principles. Nor do his apologists. And that's why Reinsdorf and his apologists are all losers.

Lip

gosox41
10-10-2004, 09:21 AM
Always ready to help Bob:

Guys like Reinsdorf are a different sort. He raises prices whether he signs anyone or not, and blames whatever shortcomings the team has on his fans for not spending more. He has no understanding of either economic or business principles. Nor do his apologists. And that's why Reinsdorf and his apologists are all losers.

Lip

Thanks for the update.

I don't consider myself a JR apologist, but I try to see both sides to everything instead of jumping the gun.


And the statement is open ended and confusing 2 different issues. Look back the last few years. When ticket prices have gone up, pay roll has gone up the next season. The second issue is how the money is spend...or in KW's case misspent. If he's not 'signing anyone' that's KW's fault for not budgetin right. Doing things like picking up Valentins option for $5 mill or extending PK's contract and overpaynig him fall under KW. Those arep layer personnel moves. That's KW.

As for signing anyone, I can be nit picky and show the Sox have signed players that have come from other organizations like Shingo who 'signed' or Freddy Garcia who 'signed' an extension.


Last, show me a recent quote where JR himself has come out and said he blames the fans. He did say things like that...years ago. And I understand perfectly how it's hurt the team. But he hasn't said anything recently about blaming the fans. It's beating a deadhorse, just like if I were to bring open up a new thread on the Foulke/Koch trade again. So it has hurt things, but JR hasn't made comments like that in awhile. And fasns are coming back to the ballpark. Drawing just under 2 million 2 years in ar ow isn't bad for a team that can't make the playoffs.


Last, I think there's more then one approach to economic or business principles. And I don't agree with it either as I'd like to see him take on some debt to make this team better. But if JR is making as much money as you, Lip, thinks he is off the Sox, I would say he has a pretty damn good understanding of business principles. Pesonally, I don't believe a lot of the BS that is printed about attendance conspiracies or him taking on a $15 mill salary or whatever because they can be easily disproven.


Lip, sound to me like you'r taking whatever arguments you can find that support your passion without looking at the big picture. Maybe it's lack of business experience or whatever. But you spend a lot of time ranting, but sometimes by supporting these viewpoints you are supporting things that haven't happened in years or are talking out both sides of your mouth.


Bob

kittle42
10-10-2004, 10:45 AM
Just like the Rowand scenerio? Bitterness is a recipe for depression.Aaron Rowand will win the triple crown before JR spends like a winning big-market franchise.

SEALgep
10-10-2004, 11:30 AM
Aaron Rowand will win the triple crown before JR spends like a winning big-market franchise.:rolleyes:

batmanZoSo
10-10-2004, 12:47 PM
IMO, in the "down" year, you'd have a ton of complaining about how "Jerry has his title, now he wants us to pay for crap" or "Way to maintain a championship team JR". And I'm almost certain that you'd have a ton of "I'm not spending money for this crap" and "I'm not putting a cent into JR's pocket while he's cutting back".

Bulls fans are a lot more loyal than Sox fans. The Bulls also have the luxury of having had the greatest player of all time, which still helps sell tickets.


Half of Bulls fans are Sox fans. And if the regular Bulls followers are more loyal, it's all because those six titles are still fresh in everyone's mind, no doubt about it. Having lived through something like that gives you hope it can happen again, at least once. We'd have relatively good attendance if we won two World Series and then sucked for 3-5 years after that.

I agree with Lip that even if we had a great run of playoff years and first place finishes, even without a World Series, we'd easily put up 2.5 or even 2.8 a year at least. If not for falling off the map with injuries, I'm certain we'd have drawn 2.0-2.2 this year, and that's with little or no expectations going in.

kittle42
10-10-2004, 02:59 PM
:rolleyes:
You are soooooo Uncle Jerry, or at least a close relation.

SEALgep
10-10-2004, 03:13 PM
You are soooooo Uncle Jerry, or at least a close relation.I think you're confusing yourself. :?:

Flight #24
10-10-2004, 10:24 PM
Flight says: "But I also think that as soon as they have a down year, attendance will plummet."

So am I assuming correctly Flight that your answer is the status quo? You don't think Uncle Jerry should take any financial risks because it's 'the fans fault?' and unless the fans somehow guarantee (insert number here) attendence per year then ownership shouldn't do anything?

I'd be very curious then to see your solution to break this cycle of mediocrity

Lip
I'm not saying that it's what I would do or what I'd like to see them do. I'm saying that it's a reasonable response to the current situation. I'd like to think that I'd be more willing to invest, but if it was indeed my money, I can't say for sure that that would be the case.

I can say that as an owner, I'd be willing to operate at break-even and take no salary (assuming that I would have other income or be independently wealthy). But to risk $10-20mil of my own personal $$$? Tough call.

Lip Man 1
10-10-2004, 10:39 PM
Flight:

Fair enough. Thanks!

Lip

santo=dorf
10-10-2004, 10:47 PM
Per ESPN, Sox ranked 15th in MLB with a payroll of $68mil. That # totals the contract value for players ont he current roster, so I'd guess it's not far off of the real # since while we got cash for Everett/Contreras, we paid a bunch for Koch to go away and sent cash to 'Zona for Robbie.

Houston was at $74mil, ST Louis at $81mil. The STL # is probably inflated since they received $$$ in the Walker deal that I don't believe is reflected.That number is way off. ESPN also has Donnie Sadler and Jerry Hairston Jr. on our team.

Flight #24
10-10-2004, 11:37 PM
Flight:

Fair enough. Thanks!

Lip
By the way - my solution would be to either do what your story suggested (make a public pronouncement about FA/$$$ plans and the associated expectations on attendance), or make it known in the organization that if it takes sucking for a while to build a real WS contender, that that's OK.

Personally, I think this team has a shot over the next 2 years, so for right now, I'd say make a big push for a Beltran. If it doesn't work out, then after next year you can let Konerko go & if necessary, trade Lee to cover Carlos' $$$$ (thereby minimizing the impact of the long-term deal). You then can rebuild around him & ARow since they're both still fairly young.